What the documents look like
Short-video affiliate sales rely on long-term content exposure and product-link conversion rather than live explanation. The working materials for product-information and selection questions are therefore short-video scripts, attached-product lists, commission plans, and violation feedback. These materials are updated daily or weekly, and workflow routing has to handle the matching relationships and state transitions among them.
In FastGPT v4.17.2, 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 conversation continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects required form information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node. When the user makes a selection, the node evaluates that selection and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and trigger execution.
The central routing task is to take fields from scripts, product lists, commission plans, and violation feedback, collect them through interaction nodes, and pass them to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The interaction state is recorded by the interaction nodes. The documents do not describe a global state-recording switch. Collected information has to be passed explicitly to subsequent retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs must be compared item by item against inputs. Order writing, document backfill, and external state synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. A form submission by itself does not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise: on 10 June 2025, a content operator submits an attached-product list. The source text reads: "Product A, commission rate 15%, promotion validity 1 June 2025 to 30 June 2025; Product B, commission rate 20%, promotion validity 1 July 2025 to 31 July 2025." The operator also submits a draft sentence: "Product B can enjoy a 20% commission in June." The question is whether the draft sentence agrees with the list.
In this exercise, the subject is the content operator, the objects are Product A and Product B, the states are commission rate and promotion validity, and the date scope is June. Comparing the draft sentence with the source text: the start date of Product B's promotion validity is 1 July, while the draft sentence states June. The two values are mutually exclusive on the same field, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented basis | Check on this page |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Triggers an interaction state and collects required information | Check whether submitted information reaches subsequent nodes |
| User Selection node | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a selection | Verify branch connections one by one |
| Interaction-state check | The interaction node records state | Check whether the conversation enters an interaction state after triggering |
| Output handoff check | Information is passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes | Compare outputs against inputs item by item |
| External-operation split | Order writing, document backfill, and external state synchronization require a separate business interface | Check whether an independent business interface receives the action |
Hypothetical trial starting point: set the commission-rate field in the product list as required. This starting point is chosen because the commission rate is the key field for judging the draft sentence and must be compared with the rate value in that sentence. This starting point is a hypothetical setting for this page, not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating a form submission as authorized execution. In the exercise, the content operator submits the list, which only completes information collection. Order writing or commission-plan activation requires a separate business interface. The submission action does not constitute authorization.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the User Selection node as automatic judgment. The node executes the "yes" branch on the premise that the user has made a selection. The documents do not state that the node can automatically judge whether the draft sentence agrees with the list.
- Treating a retrieval result as a permission filter. A retrieval library returning product information does not mean the operator has the right to modify the commission plan or execute promotion. Permission must be determined by an independent business system.
How to verify the setup
- Input the draft sentence "Product B can enjoy a 20% commission in June" and the source list text. Compare the start date of Product B's promotion validity with the month stated in the draft sentence. If the two values are mutually exclusive on the same field, the draft sentence is unsupported; if the stated month falls within the validity period, they agree. The expected result is unsupported. This page does not claim the case was actually tested.
- Input the form-submission action from the exercise. Compare whether the submitted information appears in the input of subsequent nodes. If a later node does not receive the commission-rate field, the output handoff is incomplete; if it does, the handoff is complete. The expectation requires checking the actual node connections and does not guarantee automatic transfer.
- Input the User Selection trigger action from the exercise. Compare whether the conversation enters an interaction state after triggering and whether the "yes" branch executes after the user makes a selection. If the branch does not execute, check the branch connections; if it executes, record the actual observation. The expectation requires verifying branch connections one by one and does not claim automatic judgment.