What the documents look like
For product questions in MCN operations, this page examines FastGPT workflow routing. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
An MCN product question can begin with the narrow task of reading the categories named in a creator contract, without becoming a full product recommendation. A proposed example refers to beauty products in the contract and separate content in a session schedule. A form can collect the contractual passage, source version and question for the next check. Collecting that text does not establish a review of ingredients, advertising claims or the creator’s promotion authority.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Proposed input for this page | Observed acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Question scope | The contract’s promotion-category passage | The answer does not become a general product recommendation |
| Submitted content | Contract version, passage and current question | The next step receives the same source identities |
| Branch test | Request session evidence or inspect contractual scope | Each selection reaches its intended recipient |
| Model-specific gap | Promotion evidence beyond a category label | Unknowns remain until supplementary sources are checked |
| Scheduling or publication | Owner confirmation and actual operation records | Conversation completion and business actions are assessed separately |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Form input node | Submitted form values pass to subsequent steps. |
User-selection node | Execution follows the connected selected branch. |
Interaction-state check | Inspect waiting and post-submission states. |
Output handoff check | Compare values passed between steps. |
External-operation responsibility | External business operations require an implementation. |
Three common errors
If scheduled content differs from the contract’s category description, first establish whether both concern the same creator, cooperation scope and applicable version. Proposed human choices can request the session agreement or inspect the contract scope. Test which receiving step each option reaches. A branch selection cannot change the contract’s meaning, and a category name is insufficient evidence that a specific product model has received permission for promotion. Another test can supply a different creator’s session schedule beside the current contract. If the answer combines their cooperation scopes, inspect the submitted parties and cited passages. Remove the schedule without established correspondence and request this cooperation’s session evidence. Membership in the same agency does not establish a relationship between those two documents.
How to verify the setup
When a follow-up concerns restrictions on a particular model, a category-only contract leaves a source gap. Identify the required product material or cooperation evidence. Inspect waiting with the gap present, transfer after supplementation and the final citations, checking for unsupported product promises. Updating a schedule, approving an agreement or publishing content requires its actual business process and result verification; this form submission does not establish that any of those actions happened.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Influencer Contract, Training Records, Violation Handling Form and Account Scheduling |
| Candidate sources | MCN Backend, Platform Violation Notice, Influencer Account Data and Contract Ledger |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |