What the documents look like
This category organizes records around foreign-exchange funds and the authenticity of the underlying trade background. Policy material from the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, bank online portals, corporate finance ledgers and customs export data supply the working facts. Daily documents include inward remittance receipts, trade contracts, invoices and foreign-exchange business registration materials, with updates arriving per transaction and per month.
Unlike letter-of-credit document examination, this category does not review a full set of credit documents. The checking focus sits on the remitting party, settlement handling and explanation of the trade background. Product material and selection questions therefore need the source document, the party identities and the business status presented together for human judgement.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node triggers an interaction state, records the workflow state, and after the user completes required information and submits, passes that information to following nodes. The User Selection node also enters an interaction state, and after the user makes a choice, executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The recorded interaction state belongs to the node's own behaviour; no separate global state-recording switch is documented.
Hypothetical paper exercise: the source material reads, "A domestic exporter A signed a goods export contract with overseas buyer B, contract number H-2026-014, amount USD 120,000, settlement by telegraphic transfer; the bank issued an inward remittance receipt on 10 March 2026, payer B, payee A; invoice number INV-014, amount matching the contract." The pending request reads, "Please register this inward remittance as settled and synchronize it to the external ledger." That request concerns settlement status and an external write. The material does not state that settlement has been completed, and no external system interface appears, so the matter remains to be verified and requires a separate business interface.
The routing constraint follows from this: a form collects values, and retrieval returns candidate material; neither constitutes authorization. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a following process. A retrieval library associates records only when the same vector model is used, and that requirement does not extend to external systems such as business-registration websites. Empty-result handling can be checked against an explicit paper input of [] at the downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks tied to this feature and primary task, using the sample above. The hypothetical starting values serve this paper comparison only and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Required Form Input fields | Contract number, remittance date, payer, payee, amount | Compare field by field with the sample text; record any missing field as pending |
| User Selection branches | "Settled" and "To be verified" | When the material does not state completed settlement, observe whether the flow enters the verification branch |
| Interaction state recording | Interaction state after node trigger | Check whether execution can continue downward before and after submission |
| Output receiving object | Following retrieval or judgement node | Compare each passed field against the fields the form collected |
| Retrieval library vector model identifier | Matches the target library | Check the identifier first; exclude non-matching identifiers and do not run cross-model comparison |
| External write interface | Not connected | Requests involving ledger synchronization are recorded as requiring a separate implementation |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as settlement authorization. In the sample, the material states only the fact of inward remittance and does not record settlement handling. Advancing the "settled" branch directly turns a collected value into a business status.
- Treating a retrieval hit as completed party verification. Consistency between payer B and payee A requires human comparison of the contract, remittance receipt and invoice. A relevance score does not perform entity or permission filtering.
- Treating a User Selection branch as external execution. Choosing "settled" affects only the flow direction. Ledger writing and status synchronization require a separate interface; while unconnected, the request stays in the verification branch.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the sample source text and the required Form Input fields, then compare whether contract number, remittance date, payer, payee and amount are all present. When all five are present and consistent with the source, form collection meets the receiving condition; when a field is missing, record the gap and keep the pending-supplement status.
- Verification two: input the pending request "Please register this inward remittance as settled and synchronize it to the external ledger," then compare whether the material states completed settlement and whether an external interface exists. When neither is stated, the flow should remain in the verification branch and produce no write action; only when a settlement voucher appears and the interface is connected does the continuation condition hold.
- Verification three: input the paper empty result [], then compare whether the downstream node handles an empty input by design. When the downstream can explicitly process the empty input and record the gap, empty-result handling holds; when the downstream depends on a first hit to continue, record it as a design gap. These are paper expectations and no actual test was run.