What the documents look like
Promotion enrollment and price management for marketplace stores centers on price, inventory, and campaign rhythm. The working documents are the campaign enrollment form, the promotional price approval sheet, the inventory lock sheet, and the campaign review sheet. Data comes from platform marketing back ends, campaign back ends, ERP inventory, and historical transaction prices. The people handling these documents are platform campaign operations staff, brand sales planners, and finance business partners. When something goes wrong, the consequences are campaign losses, removal from a resource slot, or price complaints. Updates arrive weekly and per campaign. This page does not derive batch synchronization, real-time triggers, or transaction-triggered mechanisms from that cadence.
The product information and selection question-answering task sits on top of these documents. Workflow routing has to turn the fields, states, and approval boundaries recorded in those documents into node inputs and outputs that a reviewer can check one by one. The core difficulty is that a submitted approval sheet is not an approved price, and a collected form value is not an authorization to act.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and the dialog box is hidden. After the user fills in the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form values and passes them to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node with the same interaction-state behavior. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Branch connections must be verified individually rather than assumed.
The interaction-state record is a behavior of the interaction nodes. No separate global state-recording switch is documented, so none is claimed here. Output handoff means the collected values are clearly passed to a later retrieval, judgment, or interface node, with output and input fields compared item by item. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later flow. Retrieval results and collected form values do not constitute authorized execution. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation, and the same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library does not extend to business-registration sites or other external systems.
Hypothetical paper exercise: on 10 March 2025, a platform campaign operator submits a promotional price approval sheet. The source text reads: "Subject: Brand Sales Plan A; Object: Product X in the 15 March major promotion session; Status: promotional price approval sheet submitted, pending finance business partner review; Effective scope: 15 March 00:00 to 17 March 24:00." One draft sentence to be judged is: "The promotional price for Product X has been approved, and campaign inventory can be locked." This sample is used only for paper checking. It does not indicate that any actual approval, inventory lock, or enrollment action occurred.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below is tied to the sample above and lists only documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and primary task. The starting values are hypothetical test starting points for this exercise, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical test starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input required fields | Subject, object, status, effective scope | Compared item by item against the four fields in the sample source text; a missing field is recorded as a gap |
| User Selection branch connection | "Yes" branch points to a status-check node | Check whether the branch executes the documented "yes" branch; no global switch is verified |
| Output handoff node | Pass collected form values to a retrieval or judgment node | Compare output and input fields item by item for consistency |
| Interaction-state record | Workflow state recorded after triggering | Explained per the documents; no submission count or snapshot guarantee is invented |
| External operation split | Inventory lock and enrollment writes connect to a separate business interface | Check whether an independent downstream implementation exists; automatic execution is not assumed |
Three common errors
- Treating the collected form status "pending finance business partner review" as approval. Input: the status field in the sample source text. Comparison: the mutually exclusive values "approved" and "pending review" in the same field for the same subject and period. Observable result: the status field does not state approval, so the draft sentence is unsupported and the gap is recorded.
- Treating execution of the User Selection "yes" branch as business authorization. Input: the branch connection configuration. Comparison: the branch execution record against the authorization boundary. Observable result: branch execution produces no approval or lock result, so a separate downstream implementation is required.
- Treating a retrieval relevance score as a permission or entity filter. Input: the retrieval return set. Comparison: relevance against access-permission identifiers. Observable result: relevance does not exclude unauthorized records; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching records excluded.
How to verify the setup
- Use the sample source text "Subject: Brand Sales Plan A; Object: Product X; Status: promotional price approval sheet submitted, pending finance business partner review; Effective scope: 15 March to 17 March" as input. Compare the draft sentence "The promotional price has been approved, and campaign inventory can be locked" against the status field in the source text. If the source text does not state approval, the draft sentence is unsupported and the result is recorded as an evidence gap. A pending request is not approval.
- Use the same sample source text as input. Compare the execution record of the User Selection "yes" branch against the output of the status-check node. If branch execution produces no approval result, a separate business interface is required, and no claim of automatic execution or completed inventory lock is made.
- Use the paper input
[]to check the empty-result handoff design. Compare whether the downstream node handles the empty-result branch as designed. If the downstream design does not define empty-result handling, record it as uncovered; do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns[]. Cross-model libraries cannot be associated together; check identifiers first and exclude non-matching records rather than running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.