What the documents look like
Brand after-sales repair work centres on warranty responsibility and offline repair outlets. Compared with e-commerce platform after-sales handling, the objects here include repair and replacement steps that sit outside platform refunds. The main data sources are the after-sales system, store orders, repair outlet feedback, and the national three-guarantees catalogue. Day-to-day documents are warranty cards, repair work orders, inspection reports, and replacement approvals. Update frequency is per order and daily; this page's feature does not rely on batch synchronisation mechanisms.
The practical consequence for product material and selection questions is that fields from warranty cards, repair work orders, inspection reports, and replacement approvals serve as retrieval and judgment inputs, while workflow routing arranges interaction nodes and branches among those documents. When a form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, required information is collected, and after submission the information is passed to later nodes. A user selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both node types record workflow state and continue downward once the interaction completes.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Interaction nodes handle only information collection and branch selection. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later flow. Retrieval results and form submissions do not constitute authorised execution. Warranty scope judgment, spare-part coordination, and replacement or return approval are business actions; workflow routing can only gather the required fields and pass them downstream, and cannot approve on its own.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads, "This warranty card states: product model A-100, purchase date 12 March 2024, whole-unit warranty period 12 months, mainboard component warranty period 24 months. Repair work order W-2025-0417 records the fault description as mainboard power supply abnormality, receipt date 17 April 2025, and the outlet inspection conclusion is mainboard fault, falling within warranty scope." The draft sentence to be judged is, "The mainboard repair falls within warranty scope and free repair may be carried out." Checking compares the draft sentence against the source material for consistency of model, component, and date range, and confirms whether the replacement approval document states an authorisation conclusion.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks tied to this page's sample and primary task. The hypothetical starting values are for this paper check only and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Set as required collection of model, purchase date, fault description | Compare item by item against the hypothetical source material fields |
| User selection node | Set a "within warranty period" branch | Compare against the purchase date and warranty periods in the source material |
| Output handover | Pass form fields to later retrieval or judgment nodes | Compare output and input field names item by item |
| Retrieval scope | Restrict to warranty card, repair work order, inspection report, replacement approval | Compare against the sample material list and exclude unrelated documents |
| Interaction state check | Record state and continue after submission | Compare against the documented interaction node behaviour |
| External action division | Order writes and status synchronisation attach to a separate interface | Compare against the documented later-flow requirement |
Three common errors
- Treating a form submission as a completed replacement approval. The form input node only collects required information and passes it to later nodes; the approval conclusion must follow the authorisation state stated in the replacement approval document. To check, input the hypothetical source material and the draft sentence, compare whether the draft sentence cites the approval document, and record as pending verification if the approval document states no conclusion.
- Treating the "yes" branch of user selection as a warranty scope determination. The user selection node only evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding branch; it does not determine warranty scope. To check, input the purchase date and warranty periods from the source material, compare whether the branch condition matches the date fields in the source, and record as unsupported if the branch condition does not cover the mainboard component warranty period.
- Treating retrieval results as authorised execution. The retrieval library and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation. To check, input the model and work order number from the hypothetical sample, compare whether returned documents fall within the restricted scope, and if a replacement approval document is returned without a stated authorisation conclusion, record the evidence gap.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the hypothetical source material and the draft sentence "The mainboard repair falls within warranty scope and free repair may be carried out." Compare whether the draft sentence is consistent with the source for model, component, purchase date, and warranty periods, and confirm whether the replacement approval document states an authorisation conclusion. If the draft sentence does not cite an approval conclusion, record as pending verification.
- Verification two: input repair work order W-2025-0417 and the inspection conclusion from the hypothetical sample, compare whether the user selection node's branch condition covers the mainboard component warranty period, and observe whether the branch executes according to the source dates. If the branch condition does not cover it, record as unsupported.
- Verification three: input the model and work order number from the hypothetical sample, compare whether retrieval returns are restricted to warranty card, repair work order, inspection report, and replacement approval, and observe whether returned results include an authorisation conclusion field. If a returned document states no authorisation conclusion, record the evidence gap and do not substitute retrieval results for approval.