Health examination skill package re-verification method and device for detecting environmental configuration changes

Abstract

The present application relates to the technical field of health examination data processing and software version control, and discloses a health examination skill package re-verification method and device for detecting environmental configuration changes. The method obtains audited detection environment change records, determines a configuration impact root and its downstream closure; versionizes independent audit configurations separately and generates effective configuration hashes, so that the component artifact closure hash does not contain independent audit configuration contents; when the component artifact closure hash is unchanged, a zero code difference candidate is formed, a configuration boundary verification record is constructed, and paired playback is performed on the reference combination version and the candidate; after the gate passes, the component artifact closure hash is bound to the candidate effective configuration as an immutable combination version. When rolling back, only the immutable combination version that binds the current effective configuration and passes the gate is selected, thereby narrowing the re-verification range after the configuration change and avoiding the re-activation of invalid configurations due to code rollback.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the fields of computer data processing, artificial intelligence agents, and computer software version control technology, and in particular to a method and apparatus for re-verifying health checkup skill packages in response to changes in environment configuration. This method is used to perform impact analysis, combined verification, version routing, and compatibility rollback on health checkup skill packages when changes occur in the detection equipment, interfaces, project codes, data units, reference ranges, or audit configurations of already collected health checkup data.

[0002] The object of this invention is the collected physical examination data, and the processing results are used to support the review by personnel with the corresponding permissions, without involving direct operation on the test object. Background Technology

[0003] In health checkup data processing scenarios, data processing skill packages typically need to adapt to environmental factors such as testing equipment, information system interfaces, project codes, data units, applicable population conditions, reagent batches, and reference ranges. When testing institutions change equipment, upgrade interfaces, adjust project codes, switch data units, or enable new reagent batches, the input field structure, unit conversion relationships, reference range selection conditions, and data validation rules may all change, requiring the corresponding skill packages to be re-validated.

[0004] Existing technologies typically encapsulate executable resources such as field mapping programs, interface parsing programs, and unit conversion calling programs, along with unit conversion coefficients, upper and lower limits of reference ranges, interface field patterns, and data hard constraint audit configurations, all within the same skill package. When the configuration content changes, the system usually updates by replacing the entire skill package or creating a program patch that includes the configuration content, and then performs a full verification on the updated complete skill package. Some systems may also select affected paths based on component dependencies, but these dependencies are usually limited to registered code call edges or configuration read edges.

[0005] The above approach fails to establish clear version boundaries between executable component artifacts and independent audit configurations. When conversion factors, reference ranges, or interface field patterns change, even if the component code and processing dependency graph remain unchanged, the overall content of the skill pack may still be judged as having undergone code changes, making it difficult to generate candidate versions that accurately reflect the actual type of change. Furthermore, if the candidate patch generator has the authority to directly generate or modify audit configuration content, configurations not confirmed through an independent authorization process may enter the production assembly. On the other hand, determining the scope of impact solely based on explicit dependencies may overlook components, fields, or test cases that lack dependency registration but are semantically related to the change; re-verifying all historical evidence, all processing paths, and all verification units increases the processing cost of local configuration changes.

[0006] Therefore, existing technologies have at least the following limitations: First, it is difficult to generate verifiable and auditable zero-code-difference candidates when the component code remains unchanged and only the configuration changes are audited independently. Second, traditional version combination and rollback mechanisms may simultaneously restore old execution code and its previously bound invalid configurations, making it difficult to guarantee that the current data always uses the currently valid configuration. Furthermore, at reference interval boundaries, effective time boundaries, unit conversion boundaries, and device switching boundaries, the lack of targeted verification records and pre-execution forward routing constraints may lead to cross-environment misuse of configurations. Summary of the Invention

[0007] The technical problem to be solved by this invention is to provide a method and apparatus for re-verifying health checkup skill packages that detects changes in environment configuration. This method separates the version identity of executable component artifacts from the independently audited configurations, forming zero-code difference candidates while keeping the component artifact closure unchanged. It narrows the re-verification scope based on the configuration impact root and its downstream closures, and performs pairwise playback and independent gating around the configuration application boundary. During the combined version generation and production rollback process, it continuously binds the currently valid configuration to prevent expired configurations from being reapplied to the current health checkup data.

[0008] To address the aforementioned technical problems, this invention provides a method for re-verifying a health checkup skill package that detects changes in environmental configuration. The health checkup skill package is a set of programs, rules, and execution resources used to process health checkup data, including:

[0009] Obtain the audited detection environment change records, determine the component that first reads or uses the changed configuration as the configuration impact root based on the detection environment change records, take the downstream closure of the configuration impact root as the set of impact components, wherein the downstream closure is the set of components that can be reached along the processing dependency relationship, and take the union of the sets corresponding to multiple changes;

[0010] The independent audit configuration is versioned and serialized into a valid configuration hash. The independent audit configuration is versioned by an independent authorization process, and the candidate patch generator does not have the permission to generate or modify the actual content of the independent audit configuration. The component artifact closure hash does not contain the content of the independent audit configuration.

[0011] When the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged, zero-code difference candidates for updating the effective configuration of the affected component set are formed. The zero-code difference candidates are candidates whose overall content hash of the skill pack, component artifact closure hash and processing dependency graph remain unchanged, but are bound to new effective configuration, environmental conditions and effective time.

[0012] A configuration boundary verification record is constructed to cover the boundary locations of the configuration's applicable scope. Based on the configuration boundary verification record, a pairwise replay is performed on the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate. The cost replay involves freezing the same input and execution conditions, comparing the behavioral differences between the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate, and obtaining a gating conclusion.

[0013] When gating passes, the component artifact closure hash is bound to the candidate valid configuration as an immutable combination version. When rolling back, only the immutable combination version bound to the currently valid configuration is selected.

[0014] Further, the step of obtaining the audited detection environment change record, determining the component that first reads or uses the changed configuration as the configuration impact root based on the detection environment change record, and taking the downstream closure of the configuration impact root as the set of impact components, including:

[0015] The change type is obtained by reading the organization, equipment or method, interface version, project code, original unit, applicable population, reagent batch, reference range version, effective time, expiration time, change type, source, reviewer and review status from the detection environment change record;

[0016] When the change type is a change in device project code or a change in interface field, the field semantic mapping component and the interface parsing component will be identified as the configuration impact root.

[0017] When the change type is a change in unit conversion records, the unit conversion components that declare their dependence on the changed unit conversion records will be identified as the configuration impact roots.

[0018] When the change type is a change in the reference interval record, the reference interval selection component will be determined as the configuration impact root.

[0019] When the change type is a change in the hard constraint audit configuration of medical data, the corresponding mandatory verification node and the production output of the mandatory verification node are determined as the configuration impact root.

[0020] Verify the configuration dependency identifiers and query selection rules in the machine-readable manifest, stop automatic publishing for components with unregistered configuration dependencies, supplement the machine-readable manifest, and recalculate the component artifact closure hash;

[0021] The downstream closure of the configuration-affected root is obtained by following the processing dependency graph to obtain the set of affected components.

[0022] Furthermore, when the change type is a change in unit conversion records, the unit conversion components that declare dependencies on the changed unit conversion records are identified as the configuration impact roots, including:

[0023] Read the source unit, standard unit, ratio, offset, deterministic function identifier and content hash, conversion basis, applicable project, applicable equipment or method, reviewer and effective time from the conversion record of the changed unit;

[0024] When the conversion record of the changed unit can be expressed by an affine transformation, the standard value is determined as the product of the ratio and the source value plus the offset;

[0025] When the unit conversion record cannot be expressed by affine transformation, the conversion is completed by calling an audited deterministic function with content hash, and the generation of the ratio and the offset by the generative model is prohibited.

[0026] Compare the content hash of the changed unit conversion record with the configuration dependency identifier registered in the component to determine the unit conversion component that declares a dependency on the changed unit conversion record;

[0027] The identified unit conversion component is designated as the configuration influence root.

[0028] Furthermore, when the change type is a change in the reference interval record, the reference interval selection component is determined as the configuration impact root, including:

[0029] Read the item code, specimen type, standard unit, applicable population, equipment or method, reagent batch, upper limit, lower limit, effective time, expiration time, time zone, source and content hash from the changed reference interval record;

[0030] Select a matching time from the specimen collection time and the equipment measurement time according to the project rules;

[0031] When the matching time is within the left-closed-right-open interval defined by the effective time and the ineffective time, it is determined that the changed reference interval record participates in the matching.

[0032] If the matching time is missing, the process will be handled manually, and it is prohibited to use the report generation time to replace the matching time.

[0033] The reference range selection component that declares its dependency on the changed reference range record is identified as the configuration impact root.

[0034] Furthermore, the independent audit configuration is versioned and serialized into a valid configuration hash. The independent audit configuration is versioned by an independent authorization process, and the candidate patch generator does not have the permission to generate or modify the actual content of the independent audit configuration. The component artifact closure hash does not contain the independent audit configuration content, including:

[0035] Register the actual content of the reference interval record, unit conversion record, interface field mode, applicable population conditions and medical data hard constraint audit configuration as an independent audit configuration;

[0036] The candidate patch generator is restricted from modifying field mapping procedures, conversion call rules, configuration dependency identifiers and deterministic selection rules, and is not allowed to generate or modify unit conversion coefficients, reference interval records, interface field patterns and medical data hard constraint audit configurations.

[0037] Save the replaced independent audit configuration as a read-only version for historical execution reproduction;

[0038] Perform normalized serialization on the independent audit configuration that is actually effective under the current project, equipment or method, standard unit, applicable population and effective time to obtain the effective configuration hash;

[0039] Calculate hashes for component code, field contracts, prompt words or rules, configuration dependency identifiers, query selection rules, external model or tool identifiers, runtime configurations and permission configurations to obtain the component artifact closure hash that does not contain the independent audit configuration content.

[0040] Furthermore, when the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged, zero-code difference candidates for the effective configuration of the affected component set are formed, including:

[0041] Keep the overall content hash of the skill pack, the closure hash of the component artifacts, and the processing dependency graph unchanged;

[0042] Pre-execution routing conditions are formed based on the organization, interface version, device, method, project code, original unit, target audience, and data generation time;

[0043] Record the actual standard units, the actual selected reference range version, and the reagent batch to form the environmental conditions after execution;

[0044] Verify that each production output path in the set of affected components still passes through the corresponding mandatory verification node;

[0045] The candidate valid configuration, the pre-execution routing conditions, the post-execution environment conditions, and the validity time are written into the zero code difference candidate, and the combined version identity is recalculated.

[0046] Furthermore, the method also includes:

[0047] The reference interval version or reagent batch can only be determined after execution, and the global safety shrink proof is performed on all possible inputs and structurally feasible branches within the authorized release data domain. The global safety shrink proof is to check all possible inputs and structurally feasible branches within the authorized release data domain to prove that the records that meet the pre-execution conditions are all suitable for the candidate post-execution environment.

[0048] The global security contraction proof indicates that when the candidate post-execution environments of the records that hit the pre-execution routing conditions all meet the applicable conditions of the updated independent audit configuration, the pre-execution routing conditions are retained.

[0049] If the global security contraction proof fails, the pre-executed routing conditions will be contracted or the corresponding record will be transferred to manual configuration.

[0050] It is prohibited to first call the zero-code-difference candidate and then use the output of the zero-code-difference candidate to reverse confirm the post-execution environment conditions.

[0051] Further, the configuration boundary verification record, constructed to cover the boundary locations of the configuration's applicable scope, is used to perform pairwise replays on the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate based on the configuration boundary verification record. The cost replay involves freezing the same input and execution conditions, comparing the behavioral differences between the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate, and obtaining gating conclusions, including:

[0052] Based on the upper and lower limits of the reference interval, the adjacent values ​​within and outside the interval of the upper and lower limits, the time before and after the configuration takes effect, the original unit is abnormal, the standard unit conversion boundary, the device or method switch, the applicable population boundary, the lack of matching configuration and the conflict of multiple configurations, select historical execution records or construct deterministic verification records to obtain configuration boundary verification records.

[0053] The configuration boundary verification records are divided into environment matching records, environment mismatch records, and path mismatch records according to environmental conditions.

[0054] Based on the frozen input of the environment matching record, the baseline combination version and the zero code difference candidate are run respectively, and the field mapping results, unit conversion results and reference interval selection results are compared;

[0055] Based on the comparison of the baseline route before publication and the route to be published with the environmental mismatch record, it is required that the number of calls to the zero code difference candidate is zero;

[0056] Based on the path mismatch record verification, it is confirmed that the updated independent audit configuration has not been propagated to the processing path that does not depend on the updated independent audit configuration, thus obtaining the gating conclusion.

[0057] Furthermore, the method also includes:

[0058] The independent hard constraint verifier reads the frozen input of the environment matching record, the candidate valid configuration and output, and recalculates the combination of project code, equipment or method, standard unit, applicable population, reference interval version and valid time for adaptation.

[0059] The risk level markers are fully preserved in the output of the zero-code difference candidate.

[0060] If no matching independent audit configuration exists, output a "transfer to human" flag.

[0061] The source of the verification output is traceable and the data permissions have not been expanded.

[0062] The consistency between the field mapping result and the audited field mapping, the consistency between the unit conversion result and the audited unit conversion record, and the consistency between the reference interval selection result and the audited reference interval record are determined independently. If any one of the determinations fails, the gating conclusion is determined to be unsuccessful, and it is prohibited to use the already passed determination result to compensate for the unsuccessful determination result.

[0063] Furthermore, when the gating passes, the component artifact closure hash is bound to the candidate valid configuration as an immutable combination version. During rollback, only the immutable combination version bound to the currently valid configuration is selected, including:

[0064] The entire skill pack content, the component artifact closure hash, the candidate valid configuration, the normalized pre-execution routing conditions, the normalized post-execution environment conditions, and the validity period are all bound together into an immutable combined version;

[0065] For subsequent physical examination data, the immutable combination version is matched positively with the pre-execution fields and the standardized pre-execution routing conditions, and a one-way rejection is performed by authorizing the release of data domain members before the call;

[0066] Historical physical examination data is routed to a read-only, immutable combination version that is valid for the corresponding time based on the specimen collection time or equipment measurement time, and the use of expired independent audit configurations is prohibited for the current physical examination data.

[0067] When production encounters an anomaly, the abnormal version is excluded, and the version that simultaneously meets the following conditions is identified as the rollback version: binding to the current valid configuration, binding to the current normalized pre-execution routing conditions and normalized post-execution environment conditions, authorizing the published data domain to cover the current input, valid global security contract shrinkage proof, field contract compatibility, and external dependencies available and gated.

[0068] When only reusable old execution code exists, the old execution code is combined with the currently valid configuration to form a new candidate. After re-executing the pairwise replay and gating, an immutable combined version is generated. Before gating, manual processing is required, and the restoration of the invalidated reference interval record, unit conversion record, and interface field mode that the old execution code was previously bound to is prohibited.

[0069] Furthermore, the method also includes:

[0070] Using configuration items, device adaptation rules, unit conversion rules, reference interval documents, component read / write fields, test cases and historical change evidence as nodes, and read relationships, generation relationships, verification relationships and applicable relationships as edges, a heterogeneous influence graph with node types and edge types is constructed.

[0071] After removing the organization identifier and the detection object identity identifier from the pre-change value, post-change value, equipment description, field name and audit remarks in the detection environment change record, the data is encoded into a semantic vector to obtain the semantic prior score of each node in the heterogeneous influence graph.

[0072] The influence is propagated along the allowed edge types and multiplied by the decay factor according to the number of hops. A first weight is set for the edges with mandatory verification relationships, and a second weight is set for the allowed edges without the first weight. The first weight is greater than the second weight, so as to obtain the structure propagation score of each component, field and test case.

[0073] Nodes with explicit hard dependency tags are directly included in the set of influencing components. Nodes whose semantic prior score and structural propagation score are weighted and fused and are not lower than the fusion score threshold are included in the automatic re-verification layer. Nodes whose semantic prior score is not lower than the semantic score threshold and whose structural propagation score is lower than the fusion score threshold are included in the manual verification layer to obtain a hierarchical influence list.

[0074] The zero code difference candidate is reconstructed and corresponding test cases are added only for nodes in the automatic retesting layer; nodes in the manual review layer are not written into the zero code difference candidate.

[0075] Furthermore, the method also includes:

[0076] Based on the syntax structure, rule scope, and component input / output contracts of the configuration file, device mapping, unit conversion, reference range selection, missing data handling, and verification conditions are divided into well-defined verification units to obtain a verification unit tree.

[0077] For each verification unit in the verification unit tree, extract the read field, write field, applicable environment, preconditions, postconditions and proof result to obtain a semantic digest and proof cache with dependency hash;

[0078] After performing normalized serialization on the independent audit configuration and the component input-output contract, the dependency hash of the semantic digest is calculated so that changes in only the format, annotations or order do not trigger proof invalidation.

[0079] Based on the configuration change differences, locate the verification units that have been syntactically modified, and propagate the failures along the read-write dependencies, preconditions and postconditions in the semantic digest to obtain the minimum proof failure set, wherein the minimum proof failure set is the set of units that need to be re-verified after propagation along the read-write dependencies and preconditions and postconditions.

[0080] The verification units and cross-verification unit boundaries in the minimum proof failure set are re-verified, and the unfailed proof caches consistent with the dependency hash are combined to obtain the contract verification conclusion and cache reuse list;

[0081] The contract verification conclusion is that when it passes, the pairwise replay is performed only on the affected paths, and the minimum proof failure set is expanded when the dependency hash is inconsistent or the cross-verification unit boundary verification fails.

[0082] Furthermore, the method also includes:

[0083] Historical execution evidence is partitioned by institutional authorization domain, device family, unit family, reference interval version, component path hash and time window. The configuration values ​​and path summaries that have appeared in each evidence partition are recorded to obtain a source sketch without the direct identity of the detected object. The source sketch is a conservative summary of the historical evidence partitions, and only partitions that can prove to be unrelated to the change are skipped.

[0084] Extract equipment conditions, unit conditions, reference interval conditions, path conditions, and time conditions from the fields of the detection environment change record and the affected component set to obtain a change query that intersects or ranges with the source sketch execution set.

[0085] For each evidence partition, a conservative intersection judgment is performed. Evidence partitions that can prove no intersection with the change query are identified as irrelevant partitions and skipped. Evidence partitions that are not identified as irrelevant partitions are identified as potentially relevant partitions.

[0086] Within the potentially relevant partitions, perform field contract matching, path and environment matching, and stable sample selection to obtain an accurate replay sample set and solidify the sample snapshot;

[0087] When adding, deleting, or correcting evidence, only the count summary, range summary, and path summary of the evidence partition are updated to obtain a new source sketch version, and the source sketch version is bound to the playback evidence.

[0088] Sampling and checking the false positive rate, stopping skipping and reconstructing the corresponding evidence partition when potential false negatives are found.

[0089] The present invention also provides a health check skills package re-verification device for detecting changes in environmental configuration, comprising:

[0090] The impact root analysis module is used to obtain the audited detection environment change records, determine the component that first reads or uses the changed configuration as the configuration impact root based on the detection environment change records, and take the downstream closure of the configuration impact root as the impact component set, wherein the downstream closure is the set of components that can be reached along the processing dependency relationship, and take the union of the sets corresponding to multiple changes.

[0091] The configuration versioning module is used to version and serialize the independent review configuration into a valid configuration hash. The independent review configuration is versioned by an independent authorization process, and the candidate patch generator does not have the permission to generate or modify the actual content of the independent review configuration. The component artifact closure hash does not contain the content of the independent review configuration.

[0092] The zero-code difference candidate building module is used to form updated candidate valid configurations for the affected component set when the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged. The zero-code difference candidate is a candidate whose overall content hash of the skill pack, component artifact closure hash, and processing dependency graph remain unchanged, but is bound to a new candidate valid configuration, environmental conditions, and valid time.

[0093] The boundary replay gating module is used to construct a configuration boundary verification record for covering the boundary positions of the configuration application range. Based on the configuration boundary verification record, it performs pairwise replay on the baseline combination version and the zero code difference candidate. The cost replay is to freeze the same input and execution conditions, compare the behavioral differences between the baseline combination version and the zero code difference candidate, and obtain the gating conclusion.

[0094] The combined version binding and rollback module is used to bind the component artifact closure hash and the candidate valid configuration to an immutable combined version when the gate passes, and to select only the immutable combined version bound to the currently valid configuration when rolling back.

[0095] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows:

[0096] This invention employs a mechanism that separates the independent audit configuration from the component artifact closure and calculates the effective configuration hash and the component artifact closure hash separately. This enables code changes and configuration content changes to be identified separately, thereby forming zero-code-difference candidates that truly reflect configuration changes when the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged, and restricting the candidate patch generator's write permissions to the actual content of the independent audit configuration.

[0097] By employing an impact scope determination mechanism that combines configuration impact root, downstream closure, heterogeneous impact graph propagation, and minimum proof failure set, explicit dependent components can be forced into the re-verification scope, and semantically related but structurally unreachable objects can enter the manual review layer. This reduces the re-verification work of irrelevant paths while lowering the possibility of missing related components, fields, and test cases.

[0098] By constructing configuration boundary verification records around the upper and lower limits of the reference range, effective time, data unit, device or method, applicable users, missing configuration, and multiple configuration conflicts, and by separately verifying environment matching records, environment mismatch records, and path mismatch records, configuration adaptation errors, cross-environment calls, and irrelevant path propagation can be identified before release. Field mapping, unit conversion, and reference range selection are each independently gated (i.e., independently verifying mapping, conversion, and range selection requirements; failure of any required item results in rejection), avoiding the situation where a passing result compensates for a failing result.

[0099] By binding the component artifact closure hash, candidate valid configuration, pre-execution routing conditions, post-execution environmental conditions, and validity time together into an immutable combined version, and setting the binding of the current valid configuration as a rollback qualification condition, the old execution code can only be used after being recombined with the current valid configuration and passing the gating. This avoids invalidated reference interval records, unit conversion records, or interface field patterns from being reapplied to the current health check data due to version rollback. Attached Figure Description

[0100] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of the overall process of the health check skills package re-verification method for changing the detection environment configuration provided in this embodiment of the invention;

[0101] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the configuration influence root determination and downstream closure analysis process provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0102] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the independent audit configuration versioning and zero-code-difference candidate build process provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0103] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the configuration boundary record construction and paired playback gating process provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0104] Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the immutable combination version binding and current valid configuration rollback process provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0105] Figure 6 A schematic diagram of the module structure of the health check skills package re-verification device for changing the detection environment configuration provided in this embodiment of the invention;

[0106] Figure 7 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the processing chain of physical examination data in an existing business processing project provided by an embodiment of the present invention;

[0107] Figure 8 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the process of determining the scope of impact, separating versions, and constructing candidates to be verified after a change in the detection environment configuration provided in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0108] Figure 9 A schematic diagram illustrating the process of configuring boundary verification record classification verification and independent gating judgment provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0109] Figure 10 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the combined version release routing and compatibility fallback selection process provided in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0110] The present invention will be further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments. The present invention processes collected physical examination data and outputs data processing results, configuration adaptation results, risk level markers, or manual review indicators for review by authorized personnel. The institution, equipment codes, project codes, configuration values, and times used in the following embodiments are exemplary and do not constitute a limitation on the scope of protection.

[0111] In one optional implementation, the steps of this invention can be described in conjunction with specific application fields and actual business scenarios. For example... Figure 7 As shown, the following are two business processing items used for the auxiliary final inspection processing of completed inspection data, which are the business processing objects controlled by this invention. It should be noted that the program or function names below are only used to locate existing input, processing and output links. The configured independent audit, double hash management, combined version generation and compatibility rollback control are still set according to the aforementioned scheme of this invention, and are not limited to the protection scope of this invention by function names.

[0112] In one optional implementation, the first type of business processing project adopts a workflow approach to orchestrate the medical examination data processing flow. For example, it is orchestrated uniformly by the workflow orchestration function `build_workflow()`, and the running status is saved in the state object `MedicalReportState`. In this process, the examined data is first split into atomic department data by the split node function `split_exam_results_node()`, and then organized into model input by the input processing function `prepare_llm_input()`. Subsequently, the diagnostic processing function `run_diagnosis()` reads the diagnostic rules and calls the diagnostic processing to generate diagnostic results. Then, the results are merged, sorted, and suggestions and reports are generated and assembled to form the final report. The above processing stages provide the registration location of components, read / write fields, and production output paths for this invention. Taking the change of source unit configuration as an example, the system reads the relationship to locate the unit conversion component and its downstream components according to the actual registered configuration, instead of judging all diagnostic nodes as affected components. After keeping the component artifact closure unchanged and binding the new valid audit configuration, the frozen input is used to verify the field mapping, unit conversion, configuration selection, and final output. It should be noted that the evidence context validation function `validate_evidence_context()` in this process only checks the evidence structure and source context fields, and the routing function `route_after_diagnosis()` only selects whether to continue processing or transition to a failure result based on the error flags in the status. Neither of these can directly replace the independent hard constraint validator and environmental routing proof in this invention. Furthermore, the data compression function `compact_data()` removes some identifier fields from the model input; therefore, source tracing should be associated with the original input snapshot, and not solely rely on the compressed model input.

[0113] In another optional implementation, the second type of business processing project adopts a request-driven processing flow. For example, the inspection() function receives processing requests, and the validate_request_data() function validates the basic data structure using the OrderRequest object and the OrderInfo object. During the main processing, the format_compatible() function ensures compatibility with departmental data formats, the name_standard() function standardizes the names of the inspection items, and the range_compare() function compares the inspection results with a given reference range. After the main processing is completed, input and result snapshots are saved, and snapshots can be read using the get_snap() function. After configuration changes occur, changes to the interface or project code can be identified from the format parsing and project mapping stages to determine the root cause of the configuration impact; changes to the reference range are identified from the range selection stage. It should be noted that the range_compare() function only compares the passed range parameters and does not itself prove that the range has been correctly selected according to the device, method, applicable population, and effective time. When applying the solution of this invention, the independent audit configuration must be read first, and then the adaptation relationship of the selected configuration must be recalculated by the independent hard constraint validator. Furthermore, while existing input / output snapshots provide playback material, snapshots saved by order cannot be directly considered as the immutable combination version described in this invention; comparisons of historical test results are also not equivalent to paired playbacks of the baseline combination version and candidates under the same frozen input. After applying this invention, input / output snapshots, audit records, component workpiece closure hashes, valid configuration hashes, and playback batches should be interconnected, and the results passed through gating should be solidified according to the combination version identity.

[0114] In one optional implementation, the shared reference data for business input may include fields such as "department," "deptItemList_all," "examination items," "examination results," "unit," and "reference range." Some records may also include past physical examination data, which can serve as a carrier for input data and historical samples. The equipment, method, configuration version, and review information must be verified according to the testing environment change record and machine-readable list described in this invention. The "reference range" field in the business input does not automatically have independent review configuration status. Regarding time matching, the specimen collection time or equipment measurement time is selected according to pre-registered project rules, and the matching configuration is based on an interval where the effective time includes the endpoint and the expiration time does not. The request time (request_time) or the date index of past records in the reference data cannot replace the matching time without verification. If the specified time is missing, manual processing is required; the report generation time cannot be used to fill the gap.

[0115] In one alternative implementation, a boundary verification example can be provided in conjunction with specific numerical values. For example... Figure 8 As shown, following the settings of the previous embodiment: Device code A_07 is mapped to standard item code ITEM_A, the source unit g / L is converted to standard unit mg / L according to the audited ratio of 1000 and offset of 0, the reference range is 20 to 40 mg / L, and it will be effective from 00:00 on January 1, 2026. The boundary verification values ​​shown in the table below can be constructed:

[0116] 0.01999 19.99 Lower limit adjacent values 0.02000 20 lower limit 0.02001 20.01 Neighboring values ​​within the lower limit 0.03999 39.99 Neighboring values ​​within the upper limit 0.04000 40 upper limit 0.04001 40.01 Upper limit neighboring values

[0117] It should be noted that the table above is only used to illustrate the boundary test values ​​at the software level and does not assign any specific clinical meaning to the example projects. For example... Figure 9 As shown, in pairwise playback, three types of verification can be performed: Environment matching records use the same frozen input, comparing the field mapping, unit conversion, and reference range selection results between the baseline combination version and the zero-code-difference candidate; environment mismatch records use conditions such as inapplicable devices or inapplicable source units, requiring the zero-code-difference candidate to be called zero times; path mismatch records select items that do not read the currently changed configuration, checking that the configuration change has not propagated to unrelated processing paths. In addition to numerical boundaries, data records can also be constructed for 1 second before the effective time, exactly at the effective time, and 1 second after the effective time. Cases with missing matching configurations or multiple configuration conflicts will not pass the gating.

[0118] Regarding routing restrictions, the global security contraction proof method from the previous embodiment is adopted: if device A_07 can use both detection methods M1 and M2, but the new configuration only applies to method M1, then the pre-execution routing conditions should be contracted to device A_07 and method M1. Records with missing method information should be manually processed. Verification must cover all possible input categories and structurally feasible branches within the authorized published data domain. A few test samples passing the test cannot replace global proof, nor can the candidate be run first and then the candidate's own output be used to prove the route is correct.

[0119] like Figure 10 As shown, in terms of the rollback example, the version settings of the previous embodiment are followed: the abnormal version V3 is bound to the currently valid configuration C3, and the old version V2 is bound to the invalid configuration C2. At this time, V2 cannot be directly restored as a rollback version. When only the old execution code can be reused, the old execution code and the currently valid configuration C3 form a new candidate V4. After re-executing the global security contraction proof, pairwise replay and independent gating, it can be used as a rollback version. Before the verification is passed, it is transferred to manual processing. The invalid configuration C2 must not be restored along with the old execution code.

[0120] The above description of the implementation of the present invention, combined with business scenarios and numerical examples, illustrates that the program name, project name, device code, configuration value, and version identifier are all exemplary and do not constitute a limitation on the scope of protection of the claims.

[0121] Example 1

[0122] like Figure 1 As shown, this embodiment provides a method for re-verifying a health checkup skill package that detects changes in environment configuration. The health checkup skill package is a set of programs, rules, and execution resources used to process health checkup data, outputting data processing results, adaptation results, risk markers, or manual review indicators for authorized personnel to review. The method includes the following steps:

[0123] S1. Obtain the audited detection environment change record, determine the component that first reads or uses the changed configuration as the configuration impact root based on the detection environment change record, take the downstream closure of the configuration impact root as the set of impact components, wherein the downstream closure is the set of components that can be reached along the processing dependency relationship, and take the union of the sets corresponding to multiple changes;

[0124] The environment change log is generated by an independent authorization process and must include at least the audit status, auditor ID, audit time, and configuration source. The system first verifies whether the audit status is "approved." If the audit status is missing, the audit record is incomplete, or the configuration source cannot be traced, the system does not proceed to the automatic re-verification process but instead outputs a "transfer to manual verification" flag.

[0125] The configuration root of influence represents the processing component that reads or uses the changed configuration first. For example, when the device project code changes, the root of influence could be the field semantic mapping component; when the source unit and its conversion record change, the root of influence could be the unit conversion component; when the reference range record changes, the root of influence could be the reference range selection component. Starting from the root of influence, the system traverses downstream along the read, output, and validation relationships in the processing dependency graph to form a set of influencing components.

[0126] S2. The independent audit configuration is versioned and serialized into a valid configuration hash. The independent audit configuration is versioned by an independent authorization process, and the candidate patch generator does not have the permission to generate or modify the actual content of the independent audit configuration. The component artifact closure hash does not contain the content of the independent audit configuration.

[0127] In step S2, the system employs independent version space management for component artifacts and audit configurations. A component artifact closure may contain component code, field contracts, rules, prompts, configuration dependency identifiers, query selection rules, external tool identifiers, runtime configurations, and permission configurations, but it does not include independently updatable audit configuration content such as reference range upper and lower limits and unit conversion factors. Therefore, changes in audit configuration values ​​will not be incorrectly represented as changes in component code.

[0128] S3. When the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged, zero-code difference candidates for updating the effective configuration of the affected component set are formed. The zero-code difference candidates are candidates whose overall content hash of the skill pack, component artifact closure hash and processing dependency graph remain unchanged, but are bound to new effective configuration, environmental conditions and effective time.

[0129] Zero-code-difference candidates have the same component artifact closure hashes and processing dependency graphs as the baseline combination version, but are bound to different candidate validity configurations, environmental conditions, and validity periods. The system still performs verification against this actual running combination, rather than directly allowing it to run simply because the code hasn't changed.

[0130] S4. Construct a configuration boundary verification record to cover the boundary locations of the configuration application scope. Based on the configuration boundary verification record, perform pairwise replay on the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate. The cost replay is to freeze the same input and execution conditions, compare the behavioral differences between the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate, and obtain a gating conclusion.

[0131] The configuration boundary verification records cover the boundary locations of the configuration's applicable scope. For example, if the reference range for a sample project is 20 to 40 standard units, 19.99, 20, 20.01, 39.99, 40, and 40.01 can be selected as verification values. When the configuration takes effect at 00:00 on January 1, 2026, data records before, equal to, and after the effective time can also be selected. The system freezes the verification input and calls the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate respectively to compare the differences between the two in field mapping, unit conversion, configuration selection, and routing results.

[0132] S5. When the gate passes, the component artifact closure hash is bound to the candidate valid configuration as an immutable combination version. When rolling back, only the immutable combination version bound to the currently valid configuration is selected.

[0133] Immutable version control records not only the code's identity but also the current valid configuration, routing conditions before execution, environmental conditions after execution, and validity period. In the event of a production exception, the system first excludes the problematic version and then selects a rollback version from among the immutable version control that meets the requirements of the current environment and current valid configuration. Therefore, even if the old executable code can be reused, it cannot be directly restored along with its previously bound invalid configuration.

[0134] Example 2

[0135] like Figure 2 As shown, based on Example 1, the step of obtaining the audited detection environment change record, determining the component that first reads or uses the changed configuration as the configuration impact root based on the detection environment change record, and taking the downstream closure of the configuration impact root as the set of impact components, includes:

[0136] S1.1. Read the organization, equipment or method, interface version, project code, original unit, applicable population, reagent batch, reference range version, effective time, expiration time, change type, source, reviewer and review status from the detection environment change record to obtain the change type;

[0137] S1.2. When the change type is a change in device project code or a change in interface field, the field semantic mapping component and the interface parsing component are determined as the configuration impact root;

[0138] S1.3. When the change type is a change in unit conversion record, the unit conversion component that declares its dependency on the changed unit conversion record will be identified as the configuration impact root;

[0139] S1.4. When the change type is a change in the reference interval record, the reference interval selection component is determined as the configuration impact root;

[0140] S1.5. When the change type is a change in the hard constraint audit configuration of medical data, the corresponding mandatory verification node and the production output of the mandatory verification node are determined as the configuration impact root.

[0141] S1.6. Verify the configuration dependency identifiers and query selection rules in the machine-readable manifest, stop automatic publishing for components with unregistered configuration dependencies, supplement the machine-readable manifest, and recalculate the component artifact closure hash;

[0142] S1.7. Take the downstream closure of the configuration influence root along the processing dependency graph to obtain the set of influence components.

[0143] In practice, environmental change records can be stored using structured records. The change type field can use preset enumerated values ​​such as changes in equipment project codes, interface fields, unit conversion records, reference range records, and hard constraint audit configurations. For records involving multiple change types, the system identifies multiple configuration impact roots and takes the union of the downstream closures of each configuration impact root.

[0144] The nodes in the dependency graph can represent components, fields, configuration records, validation nodes, and production outputs, while edges can represent read, write, generate, select, or validate relationships. When traversing downstream closures, the system saves the starting influencing root, the traversed dependency edges, the reached components, and the reasons for inclusion, enabling the set of influencing components to be verified.

[0145] A machine-readable manifest is used to declare the configuration categories, configuration identifiers, selection criteria, and output fields read by components. If a component actually reads a unit conversion record, but the manifest does not contain a corresponding configuration dependency identifier, the system cannot assume the component is unaffected solely based on the current dependency graph. Instead, it should pause its automatic deployment, supplement the dependency declaration, and recalculate the component artifact closure hash. Since supplementing the manifest implies a change in the component artifact closure content, a program change candidate is formed, rather than a zero-code difference candidate.

[0146] Example 3

[0147] Based on Example 2, when the change type is a change in unit conversion records, the unit conversion components that declare their dependence on the changed unit conversion records are identified as the configuration impact roots, including:

[0148] S1.3.1. Read the source unit, standard unit, ratio, offset, deterministic function identifier and content hash, conversion basis, applicable items, applicable equipment or method, reviewer and effective time from the conversion record of the changed unit;

[0149] S1.3.2. When the conversion record of the changed unit can be expressed by affine transformation, the standard value is determined as the product of the ratio and the source value plus the offset;

[0150] S1.3.3. When the unit conversion record cannot be expressed by affine transformation, call the audited deterministic function with content hash to complete the conversion, and prohibit the generation of the ratio and the offset by the generative model;

[0151] S1.3.4. Compare the content hash of the changed unit conversion record with the configuration dependency identifier registered in the component to determine the unit conversion component that declares a dependency on the changed unit conversion record;

[0152] S1.3.5. The identified unit conversion component is determined as the configuration influence root.

[0153] For example, a sample project might have a source unit of g / L, a standard unit of mg / L, an audited scale of 1000, and an offset of 0. When the source value is 0.02, the converted standard value is 20; when the source value is 0.04, the converted standard value is 40. The scale, offset, applicable devices, applicable projects, and effective time are all read from the independent audit configuration, not inferred from the candidate patch generator or generative model.

[0154] For conversion relationships that cannot be represented by ratios and offsets, deterministic functions and their content hashes can be pre-registered. At runtime, the content hash of the actual called function should be verified to match the audit record; if they do not match, automatic processing should stop and a manual processing alert should be output. This ensures that identical frozen inputs, identical function versions, and identical configuration conditions produce deterministic results.

[0155] Configuration dependency identifiers can include configuration category, configuration record identifier, and content hash. After the content hash changes, the unit conversion component that declares a dependency on that record is identified as the configuration impact root, and its downstream reference range selection component, result marking component, and output generation component can be included in the set of impact components.

[0156] Example 4

[0157] Based on Example 2, when the change type is a change in the reference interval record, the reference interval selection component is determined as the configuration influence root, including:

[0158] S1.4.1. Read the item code, specimen type, standard unit, applicable population, equipment or method, reagent batch, upper limit, lower limit, effective time, expiration time, time zone, source and content hash from the changed reference interval record;

[0159] S1.4.2. Select a matching time from the specimen collection time and the equipment measurement time according to the project rules;

[0160] S1.4.3. When the matching time is within the left-closed-right-open interval defined by the effective time and the failure time, it is determined that the changed reference interval record participates in the matching;

[0161] S1.4.4. When the matching time is missing, manual processing shall be initiated, and it is prohibited to replace the matching time with the report generation time;

[0162] S1.4.5. Determine the reference range selection component that declares its dependency on the modified reference range record as the configuration impact root.

[0163] A left-closed, right-open interval indicates that a new configuration can participate in matching when the matching time equals the effective time; when the matching time equals the expiration time, the configuration will no longer participate in matching. For example, if the effective period for configuration version V2 is from 00:00 on January 1, 2026 to 00:00 on July 1, 2026, then data generated at 00:00 on January 1, 2026 can use V2, but data generated at 00:00 on July 1, 2026 cannot continue to use V2.

[0164] The selection rules for specimen collection time and equipment measurement time are based on pre-registration for the project. If the project rules specify the use of equipment measurement time, the report generation time cannot be used instead due to the lack of available equipment measurement time. The report generation time may be later than the actual data generation time; directly substituting it will cause historical data to be incorrectly matched to subsequently effective configurations.

[0165] When multiple reference interval records exist with the same project code, standard unit, and equipment conditions but overlapping validity periods, the system identifies them as multiple configuration conflicts, does not perform arbitrary selection, but outputs a request for manual identification and prevents the candidate from passing the gating.

[0166] Example 5

[0167] like Figure 3 As shown, based on Example 1, the step of separately versioning and serializing the independent audit configuration into a valid configuration hash, where the component artifact closure hash does not contain the independent audit configuration content, includes:

[0168] S2.1. Register the actual content of the reference interval record, unit conversion record, interface field mode, applicable population conditions and medical data hard constraint audit configuration as an independent audit configuration, and complete the versioning by an independent authorization process;

[0169] S2.2. Limit the candidate patch generator to modify field mapping procedures, conversion call rules, configuration dependency identifiers and deterministic selection rules, and do not generate or modify unit conversion coefficients, reference interval records, interface field patterns and medical data hard constraint audit configurations;

[0170] S2.3. Save the replaced independent audit configuration as a read-only version for historical execution reproduction;

[0171] S2.4. Perform normalized serialization on the independent audit configuration that is actually effective under the current project, equipment or method, standard unit, applicable population and effective time to obtain the effective configuration hash;

[0172] S2.5. Calculate hashes for component code, field contracts, prompt words or rules, configuration dependency identifiers, query selection rules, external model or tool identifiers, runtime configurations and permission configurations to obtain component artifact closure hashes that do not contain the independent audit configuration content.

[0173] An independent authorization process can include at least configuration submission, source verification, dual review, status registration, and effective time registration. The candidate patch generator can only generate the calling logic and deterministic selection rules for the configuration; it does not have permission to write specific conversion coefficients, upper and lower limits, or interface field patterns. Access control can be implemented through independent accounts, interface access control, and immutable audit logs.

[0174] Normalized serialization can unify field names, field order, time format, numerical precision, and null value representation. For example, the same configuration object should not generate different valid configuration hashes simply because of different field order; when the configuration value, validity period, or applicable device changes, different valid configuration hashes should be generated.

[0175] The replaced configuration remains read-only, allowing historical data to reproduce the processing environment at the time of its acquisition or measurement. The read-only old configuration must not be included in the current set of valid configuration candidates.

[0176] Example 6

[0177] See also Figure 3 Based on Example 1, when the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged, zero-code difference candidates for the effective configuration of the affected component set are formed, including:

[0178] S3.1. Keep the overall content hash of the skill pack, the closure hash of the component artifacts, and the processing dependency graph unchanged;

[0179] S3.2. Form pre-execution routing conditions based on the organization, interface version, device, method, project code, original unit, applicable users and data generation time;

[0180] S3.3. Record the actual standard units, the actual selected reference range version, and the reagent batch to form the environmental conditions after execution;

[0181] S3.4. Verify that each production output path in the set of affected components still passes through the corresponding mandatory verification node;

[0182] S3.5. Write the candidate valid configuration, the pre-execution routing conditions, the post-execution environment conditions and the validity time into the zero code difference candidate, and recalculate the combined version identity.

[0183] "Zero code difference" in the zero code difference candidate means that the component artifact closure has not changed, but does not mean that the production composition has not changed. Any change in the candidate's valid configuration, routing conditions, or validity period will change the composition version identity and trigger a revalidation for the actual composition.

[0184] Pre-execution routing conditions can only use fields obtained before the candidate call. For example, the organization, interface version, new device code A_07, project code ITEM_A, source unit g / L, and data generation time no earlier than 00:00 on January 1, 2026 can be set as routing conditions. Standard units and reference range versions generated after the candidate run cannot be used as positive matching criteria before the candidate call.

[0185] Forced verification nodes are used to check the compatibility of project code, equipment or methods, units, target audience, validity period, and configuration version. If any production output path bypasses the corresponding forced verification node, the candidate must not pass the gate.

[0186] Example 7

[0187] Based on Example 6, the method further includes:

[0188] S3.2.1. The reference interval version or reagent batch can only be determined after execution, and the global safety shrink proof is performed on all possible inputs and structurally feasible branches in the authorized release data domain. The global safety shrink proof is to check all possible inputs and structurally feasible branches in the authorized release data domain to prove that the records that meet the pre-execution conditions are all suitable for the candidate post-execution environment.

[0189] S3.2.2. The global security contraction proof indicates that when the candidate post-execution environments of the records that hit the pre-execution routing conditions all meet the applicable conditions of the updated independent audit configuration, the pre-execution routing conditions are retained;

[0190] S3.2.3. If the global security contraction proof fails, the pre-execution routing conditions will be contracted or the corresponding record will be transferred to manual configuration;

[0191] S3.2.4. It is prohibited to first call the zero-code difference candidate and then use the output of the zero-code difference candidate to reverse confirm the post-execution environment conditions.

[0192] The global security contraction proof applies to all input categories and structurally feasible branches within the authorized published data domain that can be determined by the pre-execution fields. The system can enumerate combinations of device families, methods, project codes, source units, applicable user conditions, and effective time windows, checking whether each combination will only reach the post-execution environment adapted to the candidate configuration.

[0193] For example, the pre-execution condition only applies to device A_07, but device A_07 may correspond to two methods, of which only method M1 is applicable to the new reference range. In this case, the original pre-execution condition is too broad. The system should narrow the condition to device A_07 and method M1, or output records with missing method information for manual identification.

[0194] This proof must not employ loop logic that first calls a candidate and then determines whether the candidate should be called based on the reference range version of the candidate's output. Otherwise, an incorrect candidate might provide evidence for incorrect routing through its own output.

[0195] Example 8

[0196] like Figure 4 As shown, based on Example 1, the configuration boundary verification record is constructed to cover the boundary locations of the configuration's applicable scope. Based on this configuration boundary verification record, pairwise replay is performed on the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate. The cost replay involves freezing the same input and execution conditions, comparing the behavioral differences between the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate, and obtaining gating conclusions, including:

[0197] S4.1. Based on the upper and lower limits of the reference interval, the adjacent values ​​within and outside the interval of the upper and lower limits, the time before and after the configuration takes effect, the original unit is abnormal, the standard unit conversion boundary, the device or method switch, the applicable population boundary, the lack of matching configuration and the conflict of multiple configurations, select historical execution records or construct deterministic verification records to obtain configuration boundary verification records.

[0198] S4.2. Divide the configuration boundary verification records into environment matching records, environment mismatch records, and path mismatch records according to environmental conditions;

[0199] S4.3. Based on the environment matching record, freeze the input, run the baseline combination version and the zero code difference candidate respectively, and compare the field mapping results, unit conversion results and reference interval selection results;

[0200] S4.4. Based on the environment mismatch record, compare the baseline route before publication with the route to be published, and require that the number of calls to the zero code difference candidate is zero;

[0201] S4.5. Based on the path mismatch record, verify that the updated independent audit configuration has not been propagated to the processing path that does not depend on the updated independent audit configuration, and obtain the gating conclusion.

[0202] For example, device code A_07 is mapped to standard item code ITEM_A, the source unit g / L is converted to mg / L at a ratio of 1000, the reference range is 20 to 40 mg / L, and it takes effect from 00:00 on January 1, 2026. The system can construct source values ​​0.01999, 0.02000, 0.02001, 0.03999, 0.04000, and 0.04001, corresponding to standard values ​​19.99, 20, 20.01, 39.99, 40, and 40.01. The system also constructs records for 1 second before the effective time, the effective time, and 1 second after the effective time.

[0203] Environment matching records satisfy the conditions of new device, interface, project, unit, and valid time, used to verify that the candidate produces the expected changes. Environment mismatch records can use old device code or inapplicable source units, used to verify that the candidate will not be called across environments. Path mismatch records can come from another project path that does not read the changed unit conversion record, used to verify that configuration changes have not propagated across dependency boundaries.

[0204] During paired replays, frozen inputs, external tool versions, random parameters, and permission contexts remain consistent. If non-deterministic resources exist in the processing flow, fixed versions, fixed seeds, or pre-defined outputs can be used as substitutes, allowing replay differences to be attributed to valid candidate configurations.

[0205] Example 9

[0206] Based on Example 8, the method further includes:

[0207] S4.3.1. The independent hard constraint verifier reads the frozen input of the environment matching record, the candidate valid configuration and output, and recalculates the combination and adaptation of project code, equipment or method, standard unit, applicable population, reference interval version and valid time.

[0208] S4.3.2. Check that the risk level markers are fully preserved in the output of the zero code difference candidate;

[0209] S4.3.3. Output a "transfer to manual review" flag when no matching independent review configuration exists;

[0210] S4.3.4. Verify that the source of the output is traceable and that data permissions have not been extended;

[0211] S4.3.5. The consistency between the field mapping result and the audited field mapping, the consistency between the unit conversion result and the audited unit conversion record, and the consistency between the reference interval selection result and the audited reference interval record are determined independently. If any one of the determinations fails, the gating conclusion is determined to be unsuccessful, and it is prohibited to compensate the unsuccessful determination result with the already passed determination result.

[0212] The independent hard constraint validator runs separately from the candidate skill packs and does not reuse the configuration selection conclusions within the candidates. The validator directly reads the frozen inputs and valid candidate configurations, and re-executes project mapping, unit conversion, valid time judgment, and reference interval matching according to the audit records.

[0213] For example, field mapping consistency, unit conversion consistency, and reference interval selection consistency are set as three mandatory gating parameters. Even if field mapping and unit conversion pass, if the reference interval version is selected incorrectly, the overall gating result will still be considered a failure, as the erroneous item cannot be offset by other passing items through averaging.

[0214] Source traceability information may include input snapshot identifier, configuration record identifier, audit record identifier, component artifact closure hash, candidate valid configuration hash, and replay batch identifier. Permission verification compares the data fields and data ranges that the base version and candidate versions can read; if candidate permissions are expanded, release is directly blocked.

[0215] Example 10

[0216] like Figure 5 As shown, based on Embodiment 1, when the gating passes, the component artifact closure hash is bound to the candidate valid configuration as an immutable combination version. During rollback, only the immutable combination version bound to the currently valid configuration is selected, including:

[0217] S5.1. Bind the overall content of the skill package, the closure hash of the component artifact, the candidate valid configuration, the normalized pre-execution routing conditions, the normalized post-execution environment conditions, and the validity period together into an immutable combined version;

[0218] S5.2. For subsequent physical examination data, only the immutable combination version is matched positively with the pre-execution fields and the standardized pre-execution routing conditions, and a one-way rejection is performed by authorizing the release of data domain members before the call;

[0219] S5.3. Route historical physical examination data to the corresponding time-valid read-only and immutable combined version based on specimen collection time or equipment measurement time, and prohibit the use of expired independent audit configurations for current physical examination data;

[0220] S5.4. When production encounters an anomaly, exclude the abnormal version and determine the rollback version as the version that simultaneously meets the following conditions: binding to the current valid configuration, binding to the current normalized pre-execution routing conditions and normalized post-execution environment conditions, authorizing the published data domain to cover the current input, valid global security contract shrinkage proof, field contract compatibility, and external dependencies available and gated.

[0221] S5.5. When only reusable old execution code exists, combine the old execution code with the currently valid configuration to form a new candidate, re-execute the pairwise replay and gating to generate an immutable combined version, and before gating passes, transfer to manual processing, and prohibit the restoration of the invalidated reference interval record, unit conversion record and interface field mode that the old execution code was previously bound to.

[0222] Immutable composite versions can be uniquely indexed using a composite version identifier, which changes as the component artifact closure, valid configuration, routing conditions, or validity period changes. Published composite versions cannot be modified in situ; if changes are required, a new candidate should be created and gating re-executed.

[0223] Historical data and current data use different time-routing purposes. Historical data needs to reproduce the effective processing environment when the data was generated, so it can access read-only old configurations; current data must use the currently effective configuration and cannot restore its previously bound invalid configurations just because the old execution code is more stable.

[0224] For example, an aberration version V3 uses the currently valid configuration C3, while the old parent version V2 is bound to an invalid configuration C2. The system cannot directly use V2 as a fallback version. If the executable code in V2 is still reusable, then this executable code and C3 form a new candidate V4, and boundary replay, hard constraint verification, and environment proof are re-executed on V4. V4 can only be used as a fallback version after passing gating.

[0225] Example 11

[0226] Based on Example 1, the method further includes:

[0227] S6. Using configuration items, device adaptation rules, unit conversion rules, reference interval documents, component read / write fields, test cases and historical change evidence as nodes, and read relationships, generation relationships, verification relationships and applicable relationships as edges, construct a heterogeneous influence graph with node types and edge types.

[0228] S7. After removing the organization identifier and the detection object identity identifier from the pre-change value, post-change value, equipment description, field name and audit remarks in the detection environment change record, encode them into semantic vectors to obtain the semantic prior score of each node in the heterogeneous influence graph;

[0229] S8. Propagate the influence along the allowed edge types and multiply by the decay factor according to the number of hops. Set the first weight for the edges with mandatory verification relationships and the second weight for the allowed edges without the first weight. The first weight is greater than the second weight. This gives the structure propagation score of each component, field and test case.

[0230] S9. Nodes with explicit hard dependency tags are directly included in the set of influencing components. Nodes whose semantic prior score and structural propagation score are weighted and fused and are not lower than the fusion score threshold are included in the automatic re-verification layer. Nodes whose semantic prior score is not lower than the semantic score threshold and whose structural propagation score is lower than the fusion score threshold are included in the manual verification layer to obtain a hierarchical influence list.

[0231] S10. Only the nodes in the automatic retesting layer are reconstructed to create the zero code difference candidates and corresponding test cases are added. The nodes in the manual review layer are not written into the zero code difference candidates.

[0232] Heterogeneous influence graphs are used to supplement potential registration gaps in explicit dependency graphs. Semantic prior scores reflect the relevance between change records and node descriptions, while structural propagation scores reflect the degree to which nodes are affected by changes through allowed dependency edges. The more propagation hops, the weaker the impact; therefore, propagation contributions can be reduced hop-by-hop according to a preset attenuation factor.

[0233] In one example, the first weight can be set to 100, the second weight to 60, and the propagation contribution is adjusted to 80% of the previous hop for each additional hop. The above figures are for illustrative purposes only. The first weight, second weight, attenuation factor, and threshold should all be fixed together with the heterogeneous influence graph version, and the node score, propagation path, and reason for selection should be recorded in the gating evidence.

[0234] Nodes that are semantically related but structurally unreachable only enter the manual review layer and are not automatically modified in the candidate configuration. Nodes with explicit hard dependencies are not affected by the fusion threshold and must enter the set of affected components. Thus, semantic signals are used to discover potential omissions rather than to prove the existence of execution dependencies on their own.

[0235] Example 12

[0236] Based on Example 1, the method further includes:

[0237] S11. Based on the syntax structure, rule scope, and component input / output contracts of the configuration file, the device mapping, unit conversion, reference range selection, missing data handling, and verification conditions are divided into well-defined verification units to obtain a verification unit tree;

[0238] S12. Extract the read field, write field, applicable environment, preconditions, postconditions and proof result for each verification unit in the verification unit tree to obtain a semantic digest and proof cache with dependency hash;

[0239] S13. After performing normalized serialization on the independent audit configuration and the component input-output contract, calculate the dependency hash of the semantic digest so that changes in only the format, annotations or order do not trigger proof invalidation;

[0240] S14. Locate the syntactically modified verification units based on the configuration change differences, and propagate the failures along the read-write dependencies, preconditions and postconditions in the semantic digest to obtain the minimum proof failure set, wherein the minimum proof failure set is the set of units that need to be re-verified after propagation along the read-write dependencies and preconditions.

[0241] S15. Re-verify the verification units and cross-verification unit boundaries in the minimum proof failure set, and combine them with the non-failed proof caches consistent with the dependency hash to obtain the contract verification conclusion and cache reuse list;

[0242] S16. The contract verification conclusion is that if it passes, the pairwise replay is only performed on the affected path, and the minimum proof failure set is expanded when the dependency hash is inconsistent or the cross-verification unit boundary verification fails.

[0243] The validation unit tree can be built according to the object hierarchy, rule blocks, and scope in the configuration file. Each validation unit has clearly defined input fields, output fields, and applicable environments. For example, the device code mapping unit reads the device code and the original project code, and writes the standard project code; the unit conversion unit reads the source value, source unit, and standard project code, and writes the standard value and standard unit.

[0244] Normalization is used to eliminate spaces, comments, and differences in field order that have no semantic impact. If only the configuration file indentation or comments are modified, the normalized semantic digest dependency hash remains unchanged, and the original proof cache can continue to be reused.

[0245] When reusing partial proofs, it is still necessary to check cross-cell boundaries. For example, if the output standard unit of a unit conversion cell changes, its preconditions may no longer be met even if the downstream reference interval selection cell itself has not been modified. Therefore, failure propagation is based not only on the file modification location, but also on read fields, write fields, preconditions, and postconditions.

[0246] When cross-unit boundary verification fails, the system adds the adjacent downstream units to the minimum proof failure set and re-verifies until a complete contract verification conclusion is formed or the candidate is determined to fail.

[0247] Example 13

[0248] Based on Example 1, the method further includes:

[0249] S17. Partition historical execution evidence according to the authorized domain of the organization, device family, unit family, reference interval version, component path hash and time window, record the configuration value and path summary that appeared in each evidence partition, and obtain the source sketch without the direct identity of the detected object. The source sketch is a conservative summary of the historical evidence partition, and only partitions that can prove that they are unrelated to the change are skipped.

[0250] S18. Extract equipment conditions, unit conditions, reference interval conditions, path conditions, and time conditions from the fields of the detection environment change record and the affected component set to obtain a change query that intersects with or ranges the source sketch execution set.

[0251] S19. Perform a conservative intersection judgment on each evidence partition, determine the evidence partitions that can prove no intersection with the change query as irrelevant partitions and skip them, and determine the evidence partitions that are not determined as irrelevant partitions as potentially relevant partitions.

[0252] S20. Perform field contract matching, path and environment matching, and stable sample selection within the potentially relevant partitions to obtain an accurate replay sample set and solidify the sample snapshot;

[0253] S21. When adding, deleting or correcting evidence, only update the count summary, range summary and path summary of the evidence partition to obtain a new source sketch version, and bind the source sketch version to the playback evidence;

[0254] S22. Sampling and checking the false positive rate, stopping skipping and reconstructing the corresponding evidence partition when potential false negatives are found.

[0255] A source sketch is a conservative summary of the configuration values, numerical ranges, and processing paths within an evidence partition, used to determine whether a partition might contain records related to the change. The source sketch does not directly replace field contract matching and environment matching; it is only used to skip partitions where no overlap can be proven.

[0256] For example, if a change only involves device family A, unit family U1, and the first quarter of 2026, while an evidence partition only includes device family B, unit family U2, and the fourth quarter of 2025, then that partition can be identified as an irrelevant partition. If the sketch information is insufficient or the ranges overlap, the partition is retained as a potentially relevant partition, and a precise screening is performed.

[0257] The source draft employs a conservative strategy that allows multiple entries but not omissions. When deleting or correcting evidence, if the existing summary structure cannot be safely reduced, the system first preserves the original approximate range and adds the corresponding partition to the reconstruction queue, without immediately shrinking the draft. If a potential false negative is detected, the skipped result for that partition is immediately discontinued.

[0258] Example 14

[0259] like Figure 6 As shown, this embodiment provides a health check skills package re-verification device for detecting changes in environmental configuration, including:

[0260] The impact root analysis module is used to obtain the audited detection environment change records, determine the component that first reads or uses the changed configuration as the configuration impact root based on the detection environment change records, and take the downstream closure of the configuration impact root as the impact component set, wherein the downstream closure is the set of components that can be reached along the processing dependency relationship, and take the union of the sets corresponding to multiple changes.

[0261] The configuration versioning module is used to version and serialize the independent review configuration into a valid configuration hash. The independent review configuration is versioned by an independent authorization process, and the candidate patch generator does not have the permission to generate or modify the actual content of the independent review configuration. The component artifact closure hash does not contain the content of the independent review configuration.

[0262] The zero-code difference candidate building module is used to form updated candidate valid configurations for the affected component set when the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged. The zero-code difference candidate is a candidate whose overall content hash of the skill pack, component artifact closure hash, and processing dependency graph remain unchanged, but is bound to a new candidate valid configuration, environmental conditions, and valid time.

[0263] The boundary replay gating module is used to construct a configuration boundary verification record for covering the boundary positions of the configuration application range. Based on the configuration boundary verification record, it performs pairwise replay on the baseline combination version and the zero code difference candidate. The cost replay is to freeze the same input and execution conditions, compare the behavioral differences between the baseline combination version and the zero code difference candidate, and obtain the gating conclusion.

[0264] The combined version binding and rollback module is used to bind the component artifact closure hash and the candidate valid configuration to an immutable combined version when the gate passes, and to select only the immutable combined version bound to the currently valid configuration when rolling back.

[0265] The root impact analysis module can connect to the detection environment change log repository, machine-readable manifest, and dependency graph storage unit. This module identifies one or more configuration root impacts based on the change type and outputs a set of affected components and their corresponding dependency paths.

[0266] The configuration versioning module can connect to the independent audit configuration repository and the component artifact repository, generating valid configuration hashes and component artifact closure hashes respectively. The two repositories use isolated write permissions, and the candidate patch generator does not have permission to modify the actual content of the independent audit configuration.

[0267] The zero-code-difference candidate building module writes the new candidate valid configuration, pre-execution routing conditions, post-execution environment conditions, and validity period into the candidate object when the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged. The boundary replay gating module performs pairwise replay based on the configuration boundary verification records and calls the independent hard constraint validator to form the gating conclusion.

[0268] The combined version binding and rollback module will solidify the gated candidates into immutable combined versions and verify whether the candidate rollback version is bound to the currently valid configuration in the event of a production anomaly. These modules can be deployed on the same computing device or distributed across the configuration management service, verification service, and version routing service via controlled interfaces.

[0269] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions and improvements made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for re-verifying a health checkup skills package to detect changes in environmental configuration, characterized in that, The health checkup skills package is a set of programs, rules, and execution resources used to process health checkup data, including: Obtain the audited detection environment change records, determine the component that first reads or uses the changed configuration as the configuration impact root based on the detection environment change records, take the downstream closure of the configuration impact root as the set of impact components, wherein the downstream closure is the set of components that can be reached along the processing dependency relationship, and take the union of the sets corresponding to multiple changes; The independent audit configuration is versioned and serialized into a valid configuration hash. The independent audit configuration is versioned by an independent authorization process, and the candidate patch generator does not have the permission to generate or modify the actual content of the independent audit configuration. The component artifact closure hash does not contain the content of the independent audit configuration. When the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged, zero-code difference candidates for updating the effective configuration of the affected component set are formed. The zero-code difference candidates are candidates whose overall content hash of the skill pack, component artifact closure hash and processing dependency graph remain unchanged, but are bound to new effective configuration, environmental conditions and effective time. A configuration boundary verification record is constructed to cover the boundary locations of the configuration's applicable scope. Based on the configuration boundary verification record, a pairwise replay is performed on the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate. The cost replay involves freezing the same input and execution conditions, comparing the behavioral differences between the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate, and obtaining a gating conclusion. When gating passes, the component artifact closure hash is bound to the candidate valid configuration as an immutable combination version. When rolling back, only the immutable combination version bound to the currently valid configuration is selected.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process involves obtaining audited detection environment change records, determining the component that first reads or uses the changed configuration as the configuration impact root based on these records, and taking the downstream closure of the configuration impact root as the set of impacting components, including: The change type is obtained by reading the organization, equipment or method, interface version, project code, original unit, applicable population, reagent batch, reference range version, effective time, expiration time, change type, source, reviewer and review status from the detection environment change record; When the change type is a change in device project code or a change in interface field, the field semantic mapping component and the interface parsing component will be identified as the configuration impact root. When the change type is a change in unit conversion records, the unit conversion components that declare their dependence on the changed unit conversion records will be identified as the configuration impact roots. When the change type is a change in the reference interval record, the reference interval selection component will be determined as the configuration impact root. When the change type is a change in the hard constraint audit configuration of medical data, the corresponding mandatory verification node and the production output of the mandatory verification node are determined as the configuration impact root. Verify the configuration dependency identifiers and query selection rules in the machine-readable manifest, stop automatic publishing for components with unregistered configuration dependencies, supplement the machine-readable manifest, and recalculate the component artifact closure hash; The downstream closure of the configuration-affected root is obtained by following the processing dependency graph to obtain the set of affected components.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, When the change type is a change in unit conversion records, the unit conversion components that declare dependencies on the changed unit conversion records will be identified as the configuration impact roots, including: Read the source unit, standard unit, ratio, offset, deterministic function identifier and content hash, conversion basis, applicable project, applicable equipment or method, reviewer and effective time from the conversion record of the changed unit; When the conversion record of the changed unit can be expressed by an affine transformation, the standard value is determined as the product of the ratio and the source value plus the offset; When the unit conversion record cannot be expressed by affine transformation, the conversion is completed by calling an audited deterministic function with content hash, and the generation of the ratio and the offset by the generative model is prohibited. Compare the content hash of the changed unit conversion record with the configuration dependency identifier registered in the component to determine the unit conversion component that declares a dependency on the changed unit conversion record; The identified unit conversion component is designated as the configuration influence root.

4. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, When the change type is a change in the reference interval record, the reference interval selection component is determined as the configuration impact root, including: Read the item code, specimen type, standard unit, applicable population, equipment or method, reagent batch, upper limit, lower limit, effective time, expiration time, time zone, source and content hash from the changed reference interval record; Select a matching time from the specimen collection time and the equipment measurement time according to the project rules; When the matching time is within the left-closed-right-open interval defined by the effective time and the ineffective time, it is determined that the changed reference interval record participates in the matching. If the matching time is missing, the process will be handled manually, and it is prohibited to use the report generation time to replace the matching time. The reference range selection component that declares its dependency on the changed reference range record is identified as the configuration impact root.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of versioning and serializing the independent audit configuration into a valid configuration hash, wherein the independent audit configuration is versioned by an independent authorization process, and the candidate patch generator does not have the permission to generate or modify the actual content of the independent audit configuration, and the component artifact closure hash does not contain the content of the independent audit configuration, includes: Register the actual content of the reference interval record, unit conversion record, interface field mode, applicable population conditions and medical data hard constraint audit configuration as an independent audit configuration; The candidate patch generator is restricted from modifying field mapping procedures, conversion call rules, configuration dependency identifiers and deterministic selection rules, and is not allowed to generate or modify unit conversion coefficients, reference interval records, interface field patterns and medical data hard constraint audit configurations. Save the replaced independent audit configuration as a read-only version for historical execution reproduction; Perform normalized serialization on the independent audit configuration that is actually effective under the current project, equipment or method, standard unit, applicable population and effective time to obtain the effective configuration hash; Calculate hashes for component code, field contracts, prompt words or rules, configuration dependency identifiers, query selection rules, external model or tool identifiers, runtime configurations and permission configurations to obtain the component artifact closure hash that does not contain the independent audit configuration content.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged, zero-code difference candidates for the effective configuration of the affected component set are formed, including: Keep the overall content hash of the skill pack, the closure hash of the component artifacts, and the processing dependency graph unchanged; Pre-execution routing conditions are formed based on the organization, interface version, device, method, project code, original unit, target audience, and data generation time; Record the actual standard units, the actual selected reference range version, and the reagent batch to form the environmental conditions after execution; Verify that each production output path in the set of affected components still passes through the corresponding mandatory verification node; The candidate valid configuration, the pre-execution routing conditions, the post-execution environment conditions, and the validity time are written into the zero code difference candidate, and the combined version identity is recalculated.

7. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that, The method further includes: The reference interval version or reagent batch can only be determined after execution, and the global safety shrink proof is performed on all possible inputs and structurally feasible branches within the authorized release data domain. The global safety shrink proof is to check all possible inputs and structurally feasible branches within the authorized release data domain to prove that the records that meet the pre-execution conditions are all suitable for the candidate post-execution environment. The global security contraction proof indicates that when the candidate post-execution environments of the records that hit the pre-execution routing conditions all meet the applicable conditions of the updated independent audit configuration, the pre-execution routing conditions are retained. If the global security contraction proof fails, the pre-executed routing conditions will be contracted or the corresponding record will be transferred to manual configuration. It is prohibited to first call the zero-code-difference candidate and then use the output of the zero-code-difference candidate to reverse confirm the post-execution environment conditions.

8. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The configuration boundary verification record is constructed to cover the boundary locations of the configuration's applicable scope. Based on the configuration boundary verification record, pairwise replay is performed on the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate. The cost replay involves freezing the same input and execution conditions, comparing the behavioral differences between the baseline combination version and the zero-code difference candidate, and obtaining gating conclusions, including: Based on the upper and lower limits of the reference interval, the adjacent values ​​within and outside the interval of the upper and lower limits, the time before and after the configuration takes effect, the original unit is abnormal, the standard unit conversion boundary, the device or method switch, the applicable population boundary, the lack of matching configuration and the conflict of multiple configurations, select historical execution records or construct deterministic verification records to obtain configuration boundary verification records. The configuration boundary verification records are divided into environment matching records, environment mismatch records, and path mismatch records according to environmental conditions. Based on the frozen input of the environment matching record, the baseline combination version and the zero code difference candidate are run respectively, and the field mapping results, unit conversion results and reference interval selection results are compared; Based on the comparison of the baseline route before publication and the route to be published with the environmental mismatch record, it is required that the number of calls to the zero code difference candidate is zero; Based on the path mismatch record verification, it is confirmed that the updated independent audit configuration has not been propagated to the processing path that does not depend on the updated independent audit configuration, thus obtaining the gating conclusion.

9. The method according to claim 8, characterized in that, The method further includes: The independent hard constraint verifier reads the frozen input of the environment matching record, the candidate valid configuration and output, and recalculates the combination of project code, equipment or method, standard unit, applicable population, reference interval version and valid time for adaptation. The risk level markers are fully preserved in the output of the zero-code difference candidate. If no matching independent audit configuration exists, output a "transfer to human" flag. The source of the verification output is traceable and the data permissions have not been expanded. The consistency between the field mapping result and the audited field mapping, the consistency between the unit conversion result and the audited unit conversion record, and the consistency between the reference interval selection result and the audited reference interval record are determined independently. If any one of the determinations fails, the gating conclusion is determined to be unsuccessful, and it is prohibited to use the already passed determination result to compensate for the unsuccessful determination result.

10. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When the gating passes, the component artifact closure hash is bound to the candidate valid configuration as an immutable combination version. During rollback, only the immutable combination version bound to the currently valid configuration is selected, including: The entire skill pack content, the component artifact closure hash, the candidate valid configuration, the normalized pre-execution routing conditions, the normalized post-execution environment conditions, and the validity period are all bound together into an immutable combined version; For subsequent physical examination data, the immutable combination version is matched positively with the pre-execution fields and the standardized pre-execution routing conditions, and a one-way rejection is performed by authorizing the release of data domain members before the call; Historical physical examination data is routed to a read-only, immutable combination version that is valid for the corresponding time based on the specimen collection time or equipment measurement time, and the use of expired independent audit configurations is prohibited for the current physical examination data. When production encounters an anomaly, the abnormal version is excluded, and the version that simultaneously meets the following conditions is identified as the rollback version: binding to the current valid configuration, binding to the current normalized pre-execution routing conditions and normalized post-execution environment conditions, authorizing the published data domain to cover the current input, valid global security contract shrinkage proof, field contract compatibility, and external dependencies available and gated. When only reusable old execution code exists, the old execution code is combined with the currently valid configuration to form a new candidate. After re-executing the pairwise replay and gating, an immutable combined version is generated. Before gating, manual processing is required, and the restoration of the invalidated reference interval record, unit conversion record, and interface field mode that the old execution code was previously bound to is prohibited.

11. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: Using configuration items, device adaptation rules, unit conversion rules, reference interval documents, component read / write fields, test cases and historical change evidence as nodes, and read relationships, generation relationships, verification relationships and applicable relationships as edges, a heterogeneous influence graph with node types and edge types is constructed. After removing the organization identifier and the detection object identity identifier from the pre-change value, post-change value, equipment description, field name and audit remarks in the detection environment change record, the data is encoded into a semantic vector to obtain the semantic prior score of each node in the heterogeneous influence graph. The influence is propagated along the allowed edge types and multiplied by the decay factor according to the number of hops. A first weight is set for the edges with mandatory verification relationships, and a second weight is set for the allowed edges without the first weight. The first weight is greater than the second weight, so as to obtain the structure propagation score of each component, field and test case. Nodes with explicit hard dependency tags are directly included in the set of influencing components. Nodes whose semantic prior score and structural propagation score are weighted and fused and are not lower than the fusion score threshold are included in the automatic re-verification layer. Nodes whose semantic prior score is not lower than the semantic score threshold and whose structural propagation score is lower than the fusion score threshold are included in the manual verification layer to obtain a hierarchical influence list. The zero code difference candidate is reconstructed and corresponding test cases are added only for nodes in the automatic retesting layer; nodes in the manual review layer are not written into the zero code difference candidate.

12. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: Based on the syntax structure, rule scope, and component input / output contracts of the configuration file, device mapping, unit conversion, reference range selection, missing data handling, and verification conditions are divided into well-defined verification units to obtain a verification unit tree. For each verification unit in the verification unit tree, extract the read field, write field, applicable environment, preconditions, postconditions and proof result to obtain a semantic digest and proof cache with dependency hash; After performing normalized serialization on the independent audit configuration and the component input-output contract, the dependency hash of the semantic digest is calculated so that changes in only the format, annotations or order do not trigger proof invalidation. Based on the configuration change differences, locate the verification units that have been syntactically modified, and propagate the failures along the read-write dependencies, preconditions and postconditions in the semantic digest to obtain the minimum proof failure set, wherein the minimum proof failure set is the set of units that need to be re-verified after propagation along the read-write dependencies and preconditions. The verification units and cross-verification unit boundaries in the minimum proof failure set are re-verified, and the unfailed proof caches consistent with the dependency hash are combined to obtain the contract verification conclusion and cache reuse list; The contract verification conclusion is that when it passes, the pairwise replay is performed only on the affected paths, and the minimum proof failure set is expanded when the dependency hash is inconsistent or the cross-verification unit boundary verification fails.

13. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: Historical execution evidence is partitioned by institutional authorization domain, device family, unit family, reference interval version, component path hash and time window. The configuration values ​​and path summaries that have appeared in each evidence partition are recorded to obtain a source sketch without the direct identity of the detected object. The source sketch is a conservative summary of the historical evidence partitions, and only partitions that can prove to be unrelated to the change are skipped. Extract equipment conditions, unit conditions, reference interval conditions, path conditions, and time conditions from the fields of the detection environment change record and the affected component set to obtain a change query that intersects or ranges with the source sketch execution set. For each evidence partition, a conservative intersection judgment is performed. Evidence partitions that can prove no intersection with the change query are identified as irrelevant partitions and skipped. Evidence partitions that are not identified as irrelevant partitions are identified as potentially relevant partitions. Within the potentially relevant partitions, perform field contract matching, path and environment matching, and stable sample selection to obtain an accurate replay sample set and solidify the sample snapshot; When adding, deleting, or correcting evidence, only the count summary, range summary, and path summary of the evidence partition are updated to obtain a new source sketch version, and the source sketch version is bound to the playback evidence. Sampling and checking the false positive rate, stopping skipping and reconstructing the corresponding evidence partition when potential false negatives are found.

14. A health checkup skills package re-verification device for detecting changes in environmental configuration, characterized in that, include: The impact root analysis module is used to obtain the audited detection environment change records, determine the component that first reads or uses the changed configuration as the configuration impact root based on the detection environment change records, and take the downstream closure of the configuration impact root as the impact component set, wherein the downstream closure is the set of components that can be reached along the processing dependency relationship, and take the union of the sets corresponding to multiple changes. The configuration versioning module is used to version and serialize the independent review configuration into a valid configuration hash. The independent review configuration is versioned by an independent authorization process, and the candidate patch generator does not have the permission to generate or modify the actual content of the independent review configuration. The component artifact closure hash does not contain the content of the independent review configuration. The zero-code difference candidate building module is used to form updated candidate valid configurations for the affected component set when the component artifact closure hash remains unchanged. The zero-code difference candidate is a candidate whose overall content hash of the skill pack, component artifact closure hash, and processing dependency graph remain unchanged, but is bound to a new candidate valid configuration, environmental conditions, and valid time. The boundary replay gating module is used to construct a configuration boundary verification record for covering the boundary positions of the configuration application range. Based on the configuration boundary verification record, it performs pairwise replay on the baseline combination version and the zero code difference candidate. The cost replay is to freeze the same input and execution conditions, compare the behavioral differences between the baseline combination version and the zero code difference candidate, and obtain the gating conclusion. The combined version binding and rollback module is used to bind the component artifact closure hash and the candidate valid configuration to an immutable combined version when the gate passes, and to select only the immutable combined version bound to the currently valid configuration when rolling back.

Images