What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selling happens before a broadcast begins. The decision under review is whether a product can be sold and whether it suits a livestream demonstration. The working materials are supplier files, inspection agency reports, platform negative catalogues and historical return rates. Day-to-day documents cluster into four kinds: sample assessment forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualification records and prohibited-sale lists. These materials are updated weekly or per item, and the effective scope, issuing body and covered model numbers of a single report determine whether later question-and-answer steps may cite it. A product question that names a model the report does not cover is not answered by that report, even when the report concerns the same product family.
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 execution continues only after the user completes the interaction. Required fields are collected on submission and passed to later nodes. The User Selection node behaves the same way at the state level: it triggers an interaction state, records the workflow state, waits for the user to finish, then evaluates the selection and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. A selection question about whether an item proceeds to inspection review is therefore a routing decision, not a quality conclusion. Both node types collect and route; neither performs business verification, approval, database writes or external synchronisation. Writing a sample into a selection library or synchronising a status requires a separately connected business interface.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A sample assessment form records: "Submitting party: a supply chain service provider; sample name: portable juicer cup; assessment stage: pending inspection review; report number: QC-2024-0871; covered model: PJ-01." A proposed sentence reads: "This juicer cup has completed inspection review and may enter the livestream selection list." A pending request reads: "Based on the above assessment form, update the sample status to 'passed inspection' and write it into the selection library."
In this sample the assessment stage field holds "pending inspection review", while the proposed sentence claims "completed inspection review". Same submitting party, same object, same field, mutually exclusive values: the two conflict. The pending request asks for a write into the selection library, which is an external business action. The Form Input node collects information and passes it on; it does not execute database writes.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Relation to this page's documents |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | User interaction | Collects required fields such as sample name, report number and assessment stage; passes them to later nodes after submission |
| User Selection node | User interaction | Presents the choice on whether to enter inspection review and executes the corresponding "yes" branch |
| Interaction state check | Manual verification | Confirms that triggering the node places the conversation in an interaction state and waits for the user to complete it |
| Output handover check | Manual verification | Compares form output item by item with the inputs of later retrieval or judgement nodes |
| External write separation | Requires a separate system implementation | Selection library writes and status synchronisation require a separately connected business interface; interaction nodes do not perform them |
| Hypothetical exercise starting value | Hypothetical for this page | Uses "pending inspection review" from the sample as the comparison value against the proposed sentence "completed inspection review", compared character by character |
The row for the hypothetical exercise starting value applies only to the paper check on this page. That value is chosen because the sample text records it explicitly, and the comparison method is a same-field value comparison.
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as inspection approval. The Form Input node collects required information and passes it on; the submission action does not change the value of the assessment stage field.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorisation. Retrieval returns related documents and does not constitute permission to write into the selection library or to update a status.
- Reading "pending inspection review" as "passed". When values in the same field are mutually exclusive, they conflict; a review conclusion that is not recorded remains unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample text "assessment stage: pending inspection review" together with the proposed sentence "completed inspection review", and compare the values of the same field. Expected observation: the two values are mutually exclusive, so the proposed sentence conflicts with the source text.
- Input the pending request "update to 'passed inspection' and write into the selection library", and compare the requested action with the documented behaviour of the Form Input node. Expected observation: the node collects and passes information only; writing into the selection library requires a separately connected business interface, so the request is not supported by the node.
- Input the report number and covered model from the sample text, and compare the fields received by the later retrieval node. Expected observation: the output handover check compares inputs and outputs item by item; when the number and model match, the handover holds.
Where a document field is not provided, its value is unknown. A pending review is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Retrieval is not authorisation, and a relevance score is not a category, entity or permission filter.