过往研究表明，中央政府督办下的地方问责呈现出“分水岭效应”模式：即通过中层问责力度较大，底层和上层问责力度较小的问责结构，将压力有效转移到中层身上，以激励的形式确保自上而下的政策意图得到有效落实。新冠肺炎疫情期间，中国的地方行政在涉及疫情问责时遵循什么样的模式？该模式在精准防控政策出台后，是否与中央问责的“分水岭”模式存在差异？这是本研究关注的核心问题。本研究统计了全国31个省、直辖市和自治区（除港澳台地区）纪委监委网站曝光的自2020年疫情爆发以来到2022年新十条公布前涉及疫情问责的887个案例，以问责个人为单位编码获得1785条数据，在问责结果影响因素模型中组织层级、责任结构、问责事由和管理关系四个维度之外，增加了责任后果这一维度，构建了涉疫行政问责结果的影响模型。研究发现，精准防控出台前，问责的主要影响因素是管理关系、问责事由和责任结构，精准防控出台后，问责的主要影响因素还有问责事由和责任结构，但管理关系的影响变弱，责任后果的影响增强。总体上在精准防控模式出台后，新冠疫情期间的地方涉疫问责出现了明显的变化，问责模式出现了向精准问责的转变，问责分水岭现象不明显了。本研究发现，问责结果未受到精准防控出台的影响，各地依然采用了一贯的问责力度；主要变化在于从结果压力转为注重结构合理，具体表现为问责的准入门槛变高和问责评判标准更偏向个人可控因素。此外，各地采用与“分水岭效应”截然相反的“山谷效应”压力分布的问责模式，且始终注重个人责任和违法违规行为的查处，具体表现为除了上层压力增大外，压力从中层更多转向了底层。这种特殊的问责模式为我国迅速控制一轮又一轮疫情的扩散发挥了重要作用，并且充分动员从上到下的各方面力量参与疫情防控工作。

Previous studies have shown that local accountability under the supervision of the central government has shown a "watershed effect" model: that is, through the accountability structure with greater accountability at the middle level and less accountability at the bottom and upper levels, the pressure is effectively transferred to the middle level, and the top-down policy intention is effectively implemented in the form of incentives. What model did China‘s local administration follow when it comes to pandemic accountability during the pandemic? After the introduction of precise prevention and control policies, is this model different from the "watershed" model of central accountability? This is the core concern of this study. This study counted 887 cases involving epidemic accountability exposed on the websites of discipline inspection commissions and supervision commissions of 31 provinces, municipalities directly under the central government and autonomous regions (except Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan) from the outbreak of the epidemic in 2020 to the promulgation of the new ten articles in 2022, and obtained 1785 pieces of data coded by accountable individuals. It is found that before the introduction of precise prevention and control, the main influencing factors of accountability were management relationship, accountability reason and responsibility structure, and after the introduction of precise prevention and control, the main influencing factors of accountability were also accountability reasons and responsibility structure, but the influence of management relationship weakened and the impact of responsibility consequences increased. In general, after the introduction of the precise prevention and control model, there have been obvious changes in local epidemic-related accountability during the new crown epidemic, and the accountability model has changed to precise accountability, and the phenomenon of accountability watershed is not obvious.This study finds that the accountability results have not been affected by the introduction of precise prevention and control, and all localities still adopt consistent accountability strength. The main change is from outcome pressures to a focus on structural soundness, as evidenced by a higher barrier to entry for accountability and a higher bias in the criteria for judging accountability in favour of individual controllable factors. In addition, various localities adopt the accountability model of "valley effect" pressure distribution, which is diametrically opposed to the "watershed effect", and always pay attention to the investigation and punishment of individual responsibility and violations of laws and regulations, which is manifested in the fact that in addition to the increase in pressure at the top, the pressure has shifted more from the middle to the bottom. This special accountability model has played an important role in China‘s rapid control of the spread of the epidemic round after round, and fully mobilized all parties from top to bottom to participate in the epidemic prevention and control work