What the documents look like
Export tax rebate filing work happens after goods have left the country, and it centers on matching tax vouchers rather than on customs declaration itself. The working data comes from the electronic tax bureau, the export rebate filing system, customs electronic messages, and the finance ledger. Day-to-day documents include the export tax exemption and rebate filing form, the export customs declaration form, purchase invoices, and foreign exchange receipt vouchers. The people handling this work are finance staff at trading companies, tax accountants, and documentation clerks. Errors at this stage lead to delayed rebates, ineligible rebates, or tax risk.
For the product information and selection question-answering task on this page, workflow routing handles user-submitted product material, selection questions, and handover requests. These arrive through a form input node that collects required fields, or through a user selection node that splits the path. When the form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded; after the user completes the required information and submits, the node passes that information to later nodes. The user selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding branch. Both nodes are user interaction nodes, can be added repeatedly, and trigger execution.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Hypothetical exercise sample. Source text one: a finance staff member at a trading company submitted a selection question-answering request on 10 March 2025, concerning the "Product A export tax rebate filing document package," with status "draft pending submission" and an authorization scope of "internal company document organization and question answering." Source text two: within the same batch, a purchase invoice numbered "Hypothetical Invoice-20250310-001" corresponds to export customs declaration number "Hypothetical Declaration-20250310-001," and the foreign exchange receipt voucher is dated 8 March 2025. Proposed judgment sentence: "The purchase invoice and customs declaration for Product A have completed matching and can directly generate filing data."
That proposed sentence covers two actions: completed matching and direct generation of filing data. The form input node and the user selection node only collect information and split paths. They do not perform matching, do not write to a database, and do not synchronize external systems. Matching invoices to customs declarations, generating filing data, and handling discrepancy feedback belong to downstream business interfaces or manual steps. A retrieval result does not constitute authorization, and a recorded interaction state does not constitute approval. Source text two gives only a single invoice-to-declaration correspondence; it states no matching rule, no matching-completion marker, and no authorization to generate filing data. The phrases "has completed matching" and "can directly generate" in the proposed sentence are not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enabled, collecting product name, document status, and authorization scope | Compare field by field against what the proposed sentence requires; record a gap for each missing field |
| User selection node | Enabled, with branches "continue question answering" and "transfer to manual review" | Compare against the authorization boundary of the handover request; the choice determines the later path |
| Interaction state record | Recorded according to node behavior | Check whether the record contains subject, object, and status; add no separate switch |
| Output receiving node | Passes collected information to later retrieval or judgment nodes | Compare output fields against input fields item by item for consistency |
| External operation division | Matching, writing, and synchronization connect separately to business interfaces | Check whether an interface description exists; record as unimplemented when none exists |
| Empty-result handling | Use a paper input of [] to check downstream design | Observe whether the downstream node has explicit handling for empty input; do not claim [] is necessarily returned |
Three common errors
- Treating the "draft pending submission" status collected by the form input node as submitted or authorized. The input is the authorization scope in source text one; the comparison object is the authorization required to perform matching; the observable result is that the two do not agree, recorded as unsupported.
- Treating the "continue question answering" branch of the user selection node as automatic execution of matching or generation of filing data. The input is the proposed judgment sentence; the comparison object is the branch behavior described in the node documentation; the observable result is that the branch only determines the later path and performs no matching, recorded as pending verification.
- Treating a retrieval result or a relevance score as a basis for permission or entity isolation. The input is the selection question-answering request; the comparison object is the vector model identifier of the retrieval library; the observable result is that libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together, so the identifier must be checked first and non-conforming entries excluded.
How to verify the setup
- Input source text one and the proposed judgment sentence; compare the two status fields "draft pending submission" and "has completed matching"; the observable result should be that the statuses disagree and the proposed sentence is unsupported. If the authorization scope field is absent from the form input node output, record an evidence gap.
- Input the invoice number and declaration number from source text two; compare their correspondence against "has completed matching" in the proposed sentence; the observable result should be that only a single correspondence exists and no matching-completion marker is stated, so the proposed sentence is pending verification.
- Input a paper empty result of []; compare the downstream node's handling design for empty input; the observable result should be that the downstream node has explicit empty-result handling, or it is recorded as unspecified. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
These checks all address the proposed sentences and handover requests in product information and selection question answering. They do not involve actual filing, approval, or external synchronization.