Network Validation Sequence Optimization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional network validation methods lack efficiency and security, particularly in client verification, leading to wasted verification data and insufficient data collection, as they do not effectively manage field attributes and sequences, resulting in inefficient verification processes and inadequate error handling.

Innovation Solution

A method and system for network validation that determines a verification sequence for multiple fields based on a verification rule configuration and scoring table, prioritizing fields with lower pass rates and adjusting weights to optimize the verification process, storing results for data-driven improvements, and terminating verification upon failure to reduce overall time and increase efficiency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If server verification is performed on all fields in sequential order, then verification security is improved, but verification time increases and efficiency decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveverification securityVSAvoidverification time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by performing server verification on fields in a predetermined sequence before proceeding to subsequent fields. High-priority fields are verified first, and if verification fails at any point, the process terminates immediately, avoiding unnecessary verification of remaining fields. This resolves the contradiction by maintaining security through comprehensive verification while reducing time through early termination.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent segments the verification process into discrete field-level verification steps with defined sequences. Each field is verified independently in a predetermined order, allowing the system to break down the overall verification task into manageable segments. This segmentation enables early termination when failure occurs, resolving the time-efficiency contradiction while maintaining security.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Speed

If client verification is performed using script language, then verification response speed is improved, but verification security deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveverification response speedVSAvoidverification security
Core Design Contradiction:
SpeedVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces server verification as an intermediary layer between client submission and final validation. While client-side scripts provide fast initial response, the server acts as a mediator that performs comprehensive security verification on high-priority fields first. This intermediary server verification resolves the security deterioration caused by relying solely on client-side scripts.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary client verification using scripts for fast response, then immediately follows with preliminary server verification on high-priority fields. This two-stage preliminary action maintains the speed advantage of client-side verification while correcting the security weakness through server-side validation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Reliability

If verification is performed on all fields regardless of error rates, then comprehensive validation is achieved, but resource waste increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation completenessVSAvoidresource waste
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by assigning different verification priorities to different fields based on their error rates and importance. High-priority fields with higher error rates undergo mandatory server verification, while low-priority fields may use simplified validation. This differentiated approach achieves comprehensive validation where needed while reducing resource waste in areas with lower risk.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary analysis of field error rates and establishes verification sequences accordingly. Fields with historically high error rates are verified first using comprehensive server validation, while fields with low error rates may use lighter validation. This preliminary categorization resolves the contradiction by allocating resources based on actual risk.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Ease of manufacture

If verification sequence is fixed in configuration, then processing simplicity is improved, but adaptability to different error patterns deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprocessing simplicityVSAvoidadaptability to error patterns
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces dynamics by allowing the verification sequence to be adjusted based on real-time error patterns and field performance data. While a default configuration provides simplicity, the system can dynamically reorder verification fields based on observed error rates, placing high-error fields earlier in the sequence. This dynamic adaptation resolves the contradiction between fixed simplicity and flexible adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentEP2936366B1Method and system for network validation of information
Publication Date: 2019.08.28 ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LTD
  • EP2936366B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2936366B1 patent drawingFigure 2A
  • EP2936366B1 patent drawingFigure 2B

AI summary

Embodiments of the present application relate to a method for network validation of information, a system for network validation of information, and a computer program product for network validation of information. A method for network validation of information is provided. The method includes receiving verification information from a user, the verification information including a plurality of verification fields, determining a verification sequence of the plurality of verification fields based on a verification rule configuration and a verification scoring table, verifying a current verification field according to the verification sequence, verifying a next verification field in the event that the verification of the current verification field succeeds, and terminating verification in the event that the verification of the current verification field fails.