What the documents look like
A livestream violation appeal responds to a penalty that has already been issued, so the work is retrospective: the evidence chain has to be reconstructed after the fact. The material for this category comes from the platform violation center, livestream recordings, customer service records, and the product qualification library. New documents appear irregularly, in a batch each time a violation occurs. The documents handled day to day are the violation notice, the livestream screen recording, the product qualification file, and the appeal statement. The most time-consuming steps are locating the violating segment, supplementing evidence, and drafting the appeal reasoning.
The product data and selection Q&A task requires turning product qualifications and selection criteria into Q&A material that can be checked item by item. Workflow routing here means stringing form input, user selection, and subsequent retrieval or judgment nodes into a path that can be reviewed. When the form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, collects the required information, and after submission passes that information to later nodes. The user selection node executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice. The interaction state record is behavior of these two interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is documented.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Because appeal material is retrospective, whether the material is complete, whether the subject is consistent, and whether the status is valid directly determine whether the Q&A can give a grounded answer. The workflow has to separate collection from judgment: the form collects, user selection branches, retrieval and judgment nodes compare, and business writes or external synchronization require a separate interface.
Hypothetical drill sample: a shop receives a platform violation notice. The notice states the subject as "Shop A," the violation date as 10 March 2025, the product involved as "Thermos Model B," and the disposition status as "product banned from livestream." The shop submits a draft appeal statement containing the sentence: "This shop completed rectification on 12 March 2025 and applied to restore the product." A separate product qualification file states the subject as "Shop A" and the qualification validity period as 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. The request pending determination is: compare the rectification-completion wording in the draft appeal statement against the fields of the violation notice and the qualification file, item by item, and confirm whether the material conditions for continuing the appeal are met. This request is in a pending-review state and does not constitute any approval or execution.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centers on the sample above and lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and the primary task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical drill only, used to explain the comparison method; they are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical drill starting point | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect four required fields: subject name, violation date, product name, disposition status | After submission, check whether these four values are passed to later nodes |
| User selection node | Set two branches, "material complete" and "material pending" | Verify branch connections one by one and confirm the corresponding "yes" branch runs after a choice |
| Retrieval node | Use the product qualification library as the retrieval scope, query "Thermos Model B" | Observe whether the returned content includes subject and validity-period fields; a first-hit match is not guaranteed |
| Judgment node | Compare the notice subject, qualification subject, and draft subject | Consistency is found only for the same subject, same period, and same field |
| Output handoff | Pass collected fields to the judgment node | Compare output against input item by item and confirm no field was substituted |
| External operations | Order writes, document backfill, external status synchronization | Require a separate business interface or downstream process; not completed inside this node |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorized execution. A form only collects values, user selection only decides a branch, and retrieval only returns content. The pending request in the sample remains in a pending-review state; a form submission does not mean the appeal was approved or that rectification took effect.
- Treating an unstated field as a negative conclusion. The draft appeal statement says "completed rectification on 12 March 2025," while the violation notice states only the violation date of 10 March 2025 and the qualification file states only a validity period. The rectification-completion date and the violation date are different fields, so no contradiction can be concluded from them; the result is recorded as pending verification.
- Treating semantic recall as permission or entity isolation. Retrieval relevance does not exclude unrelated subjects and does not filter unauthorized records. If retrieval in the sample returns qualifications from another shop, the subject identifier must be checked first and non-matching records excluded; a similarity setting does not perform that isolation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the violation notice text, the qualification file text, and the draft appeal statement from the sample. Compare the three subject expressions: notice subject "Shop A," qualification subject "Shop A," and draft subject "this shop." Expected observation: the first two subjects match; the third requires context to confirm its referent, and if it cannot be confirmed, record it as pending verification rather than as a contradiction or a negative.
- Input the request pending determination and check whether the judgment node compares by same subject, same period, and same field. Expected observation: the rectification-completion date field is not stated in either the notice or the qualification file, so the judgment node outputs "not supported / pending verification" and does not output "rectified" or "not rectified."
- Input an empty-result scenario using the explicit paper input
[]to check the downstream design. Expected observation: downstream nodes handle it through the empty-result branch and record the gap; do not claim that a hypothetical rule-based retrieval necessarily returns an empty array, and do not automatically trigger external synchronization or approval actions.