What the documents look like
Dealer rebate calculation happens after sales are complete. The basis for calculation is the policy wording and the financial treatment, and the data sources are ERP sales records, dealer remittances, contract ledgers and the finance system. The documents handled day to day are rebate policies, volume achievement tables, reconciliation statements and red-letter invoices, with monthly and quarterly update cycles as the main rhythm. For the product information and selection question-answering task, the applicable products, achievement basis, deduction rules and reconciliation materials in a rebate policy need to be organized into a checkable question-answering basis, and workflow routing then lets form input and user selection carry the information collection and branch decisions.
A rebate policy can state an applicable product, a period and an achievement basis in a single sentence, while the reconciliation statement and red-letter invoice record what happened later. The question-answering basis has to keep those layers separate, because a policy scope statement and a completed calculation are different facts.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When the form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user fills in the required information and submits, the node passes the collected form information to later nodes. The user selection node also enters an interactive state, and when the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes are user-interaction nodes, can be added repeatedly, and trigger execution. Rebate selection question-answering needs to collect fields such as product, period and policy version, then route into different checking paths according to the user's choice. Retrieval and forms only complete information collection; order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization need a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval does not perform permission judgment, and a relevance score does not constitute an entity or authorization filter.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand finance team checks second-quarter rebates in July 2025. The source material reads: "Rebate Policy Version A applies to product Jia sold by dealer D between 1 April 2025 and 30 June 2025; the achievement rate is calculated on remittance amount; return amounts are deducted from sales volume." A draft sentence to be judged reads: "Dealer D's second-quarter rebate for product Jia has been calculated and completed under Version A policy." The draft sentence involves a subject, an object, a period and a status, but the material only states the policy's scope of application and does not state whether the calculation was completed, so the sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enters an interactive state when triggered; collects required information and passes it to later nodes | Collects product, period and policy version fields |
| User selection node | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice | Routes into different checking paths by choice |
| Interactive state check | Recording state is behavior of the interaction node | Check whether state continues before and after submission |
| Output handoff check | Passes collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes | Compare output fields with input fields |
| External operation separation | Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization connect to a separate business interface | Completion status is not produced by the node itself |
| Retrieval scope check | Confirm the target material is within the accessible retrieval scope | The sample material must be in scope to be cited |
The hypothetical starting value for this exercise is the period field "1 April 2025 to 30 June 2025". The reason for choosing it is that the sample material states this period explicitly, and the comparison object is "second quarter" in the draft sentence. This starting value is for paper checking and does not represent an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as a completed calculation. In the sample, the form collected product and period, but the material does not state that the calculation was completed, and the draft sentence "has been calculated and completed under Version A policy" lacks a basis.
- Treating the branch result of a user selection as authorization. User selection only executes the corresponding branch; it does not produce approval or write permission.
- Treating a retrieval hit as a permission pass. A relevance score does not exclude unrelated business or unauthorized records, and retrieval does not perform authorization judgment.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source material and the draft sentence, then compare whether the draft sentence contains a "calculation completed" status that the material does not state. If the draft sentence presents a completion status the material does not state, the condition is not met.
- Input the period field from the sample and the period wording in the draft sentence, then compare whether the two are the same period. If the periods match and the material does not state a completion status, the draft sentence remains unsupported.
- Input an empty-result handoff scenario, using the explicit paper input [] to check the downstream design, and observe whether the downstream handles it as an empty result. Do not claim that retrieval under a fictional rule necessarily returns [].
Each check states an expected observation rather than a completed test. Where the material is silent, the evidence gap stays open: an unsigned termination is not a completed termination, a pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not execution.