What the documents look like
Advertising on marketplace traffic is priced against live flow and conversion, so the working rhythm differs from campaign registration that waits on platform review. For the product-data and selection-question task, the daily document set is the delivery plan, the keyword report, the audience-package description and the conversion attribution table, with data drawn from Juliang Qianchuan, JD Express, Alimama and store transaction records. These materials update by day and by hour. That update frequency does not, on this page, justify any batch synchronization, full synchronization, real-time push or transaction-triggered mechanism.
What matters for workflow routing is that selection questions rest on stated subjects, objects, statuses and validity ranges inside those materials. The routing layer collects values through interaction nodes and passes them downstream. Collection is not authorization, and a retrieval result is not permission to act.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node belongs to the user-interaction node family. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the required fields and submits, the node collects the submitted information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node also enters the interaction state when triggered; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Recording the state is behaviour of the interaction nodes themselves; no separate global state-recording switch is documented, and none should be asserted.
Information collected at these nodes must be explicitly handed to a later retrieval, judgment or interface node, and output must be compared item by item against the input. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization need their stated downstream implementation. Retrieval does not grant authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise: the source material reads, "Delivery plan A was submitted on 1 March 2025, its status is pending review, and it covers the keywords 'spring outerwear' and 'commuter trench coat'; the budget range is as entered on the plan page." The draft sentence under review reads, "Delivery plan A has been approved and can be executed." The source states pending review only. Approval is not stated, so the draft sentence is unsupported. Nothing here claims a test, deployment, approval or write actually occurred.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Relation to the exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enters the interaction state on trigger, collects required fields, passes them to later nodes after submission | Collects plan identifier and status field for later comparison |
| User selection node | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice; verify each branch connection | Used to confirm whether a downstream action branch was selected |
| Interaction state check | State recording is behaviour of the interaction node; no separate global switch | Checks whether the exercise continues downward after entering interaction |
| Output hand-off check | Collected information is explicitly passed to a later retrieval, judgment or interface node | Compares whether plan identifier and status are correctly carried forward |
| External action split | Writing, backfill and external synchronization require a separate business interface or later process | Pending review does not trigger a write or synchronization |
| Hypothetical starting value | This exercise starts from the status "pending review" and compares against "approved" | Starting value reason is the status stated in the source; comparison object is the draft sentence |
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as approved. The source status is pending review while the draft sentence states approval. Input is the source text and the draft sentence; comparison is the status field value; the observable result is that the two values do not match.
- Treating a user-selection branch as already executed. The source records no user choice. If a draft sentence states the "yes" branch has run, the input is the source text and the branch request; the comparison is whether a selection record exists; the observable result is that selection evidence is absent.
- Treating form collection as authorized writing. The source records no write interface and no authorization. If a draft sentence states the plan has been written into the delivery system, the input is the source text and the write request; the comparison is whether an interface call record exists; the observable result is that the claim is unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the exercise source text and the draft sentence. Compare the status field values. If the source reads pending review and the draft sentence reads approved, the sentence is unsupported and the evidence gap must be recorded. Expected outcome, not an actual test result.
- Input the exercise source text and the branch request. Compare whether a user selection record exists. If the source states no selection, the execution status of the "yes" branch remains to be confirmed.
- Input the exercise source text and the write request. Compare whether a business interface or later-process description is present. If it is not stated, write and synchronization actions remain unknown and are not judged complete.
A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. A relevance score is not a category, entity or permission filter. An empty retrieval result can be checked on paper against a downstream design using an explicit empty input; an empty input does not mean a real rule-based query must return empty. Cross-model association requires first checking identifiers and excluding non-matching items; libraries with different vector models cannot be associated together, and no runtime outcome should be invented from that. The optional paths drawn in the overall document flow are not executed on every request: image retrieval needs a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking needs a model enabled per its settings.