What the documents look like
Channel diversion review concerns regional and price order. It does not handle rebate amounts. The material set for this category comes from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. The working documents are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs. The data update rhythm is weekly or irregular. That rhythm affects expectations about timeliness during orchestration, and this page does not derive batch synchronization or real-time triggers from it.
The product information and selection question task requires the workflow to solve two orchestration problems. It must collect the fields held in complaint forms and anti-counterfeit code records completely, then pass that information to later nodes along a branch chosen by the user. The form input node enters an interaction state when triggered, collects required information, and passes it to later nodes after submission. The user selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes are user interaction nodes; triggering either one puts the conversation into an interaction state and records the workflow state. Retrieval and form collection do not themselves constitute authorized execution. Generating a penalty notice, writing an order, and synchronizing an external status require a separate business interface or a later process.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Assume the following drill sample. The material text available for comparison reads: "Complaint form CX-0417 states that distributor A sold within authorized region A, that anti-counterfeit code segment F-2201 through F-2300 was applied for by A on 10 March 2025, and that a market inspection on 2 April 2025 photographed goods bearing that code segment on sale at a store in region B." "The penalty notice form is unsigned and its status is pending review." One draft sentence awaiting judgment reads: "A has committed cross-region diversion, and the penalty notice has taken effect."
The orchestration constraints are these. After the form input node collects fields such as complaint form number, anti-counterfeit code segment, application date, and inspection date, those fields must be passed explicitly to later retrieval or judgment nodes, and the output must be compared item by item against the input. The user selection node splits the path into "continue investigation" and "supplement materials," and each branch connection must be verified. Retrieval results supply material leads only; they carry no permission or entity isolation. A similarity setting does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Empty-result handling can be checked against a clearly stated paper input of [] to confirm downstream design, without claiming that a fictitious rule-based retrieval necessarily returns []. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; verify the identifiers first and exclude those that do not match, rather than running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists settings already described in the official material or implementation checks, tied to the sample above. The values are hypothetical starting points for this paper comparison only and are not official default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node fields | Complaint form number, anti-counterfeit code segment, application date, inspection date | Covers the subject, object, and date range in the sample; after submission, compare item by item against later node inputs |
| User selection node branches | Continue investigation, supplement materials | The sample status is pending review and needs human routing; verify each branch connection for reachability |
| Interaction state check | Workflow state is recorded after triggering | The official description states that interaction nodes record state; no separate global state-recording switch is set |
| Output handoff check | Pass form information to later retrieval or judgment nodes | Compare output against input item by item to confirm no field is lost |
| External action separation | Penalty notice generation, order writing, external synchronization | Requires a separate business interface or later process; this page does not assert that any of these ran |
| Retrieval scope check | Verify library identifier and vector model identifier | Exclude cross-model library association; record actual observations without presupposing recall results |
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as already effective. In the sample the penalty notice form has the status pending review, while the draft sentence says the penalty notice has taken effect. The error is reading an unsigned status as a completed fact. Check: input the penalty notice text and the draft sentence, compare the status field values, and observe whether they concern the same subject, the same period, and the same field. Only explicitly mutually exclusive values in the same field count as a contradiction; a field not stated, or evidence covering only a related stage, remains unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval result as a basis for authorization. If the form collects a complaint form number and the workflow infers a distributor violation directly from a retrieval hit, that exceeds authority. Check: input the material leads returned by retrieval together with the authorization boundary statement, and compare whether the retrieval output contains permission or entity filter fields. Retrieval does not carry authorization; observe whether a downstream approval or manual comparison action exists.
- Treating an interaction node as automatic execution. The user selection node enters an interaction state when triggered and waits for the user to choose; it does not judge automatically. A draft sentence claiming the system has already executed the penalty branch is an error. Check: input the node trigger record and the draft sentence, and compare whether a user selection action exists. With no selection record, the branch execution state remains unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- For the sample draft sentence "A has committed cross-region diversion, and the penalty notice has taken effect," input the material text and the draft sentence, and compare the penalty notice status field: the source text says pending review, the draft says effective. Observation: if the status field values are explicitly mutually exclusive, the draft contradicts the source; if the source text states no effective clause, record the evidence gap and do not supply an authorization or effective clause.
- For the form input node, input the sample field list and the fields received by later nodes, and compare whether the two agree. Observation: when fields correspond item by item with none lost, the output handoff meets the condition; if a field is absent at a later node, record it as pending verification.
- For the user selection node branches, input the two options "continue investigation" and "supplement materials" together with their connections, and compare whether each branch is reachable. Observation: when both branches can be reached from the node to a later node, the branch connections meet the condition; if a branch has no downstream connection, record it as incomplete configuration. Retrieval checks record observations and failing branches only, and do not guarantee a first hit, full recall, or that an unrelated query returns empty.