正解The correct answer is ア: “Whether the approval amount has been entered when the category requires an approval amount to be input.” The question asks for a check that (1) looks at the relationship among multiple input fields rather than at a single field alone, and (2) can be judged automatically by the system. Option ア looks at the value of the field “category,” and only when that value falls into a particular class (a category that requires an approval amount) does it confirm whether the separate field “approval amount” has been filled in. In other words, the relationship between fields — “if category = X, then the approval amount is mandatory” — can be defined in advance as a rule, and the system can decide true or false mechanically just by comparing values. A check like this, which examines whether the combination of values across several fields is free of contradictions, is called a correlation check (relationship check); it can be thought of as extending a single-field mandatory-entry check into a conditional form. Because a warning can be issued automatically while the user is still entering data, it is well suited to preventing missing entries and input mistakes on an application (request) screen.
×Incorrectイ
“Whether the approval amount is appropriate for the subject (title)” does indeed span two fields — the subject and the approval amount — but judging appropriateness is a value judgement made after understanding the substance of the case, and it cannot be written out in advance as a mechanical rule. A check on whether the amount has a valid numeric format, or whether it exceeds an upper limit, is something the system can do; but whether the amount is well balanced against the subject belongs to human review (the approver's judgement) and cannot be implemented as an input check.
×Incorrectウ
“Whether the approval-request content is an appropriate description for the subject (title)” is a judgement about meaning — whether freely written text matches the intent of the subject. Unlike formal checks such as character count or mandatory entry, the criterion for appropriateness cannot be defined by a single unambiguous rule, so it is not a target for automatic checking by the system. This too is something the person who receives the request confirms by reading it.
×Incorrectエ
“Whether the necessary attached documents exist for the approval-request content” cannot be judged by the system, because what counts as a necessary document is itself determined by the meaning of the approval-request content. If a rule such as “if the category is Y, attach a quotation” had been fixed in advance, it could be made into a correlation check; but this option takes the form of inferring what is necessary from freely written content, and so is not a condition that can be judged from field values alone the way ア is.
ここがポイント
Distinguish the kinds of input check (validation). For a single field there are mandatory-entry checks, format checks (numeric or character, etc.), digit-count (length) checks, range checks, duplicate checks, and so on; the one that spans multiple fields is the correlation check (relationship check). A typical correlation check confirms consistency in cases where the value of one field determines whether another field must be entered or what range its value may take — which is exactly what option ア in this question does.
What the system can judge automatically extends only to formal, logical consistency that can be spelled out in advance as a rule. Judgements about the appropriateness of meaning — whether the description is suitable, whether the amount is reasonable, whether the documents are sufficient — cannot be turned into rules and must be left to a human confirmation or approval step. For questions about input checks, a good criterion is whether the check in question can be written down as a rule.