What the documents look like
For after-sales questions in B2B marketplaces, this page examines FastGPT workflow routing. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The proposed electronic contract contains service commitments, while the settlement statement shows completion and no returns. Those statements do not supply execution evidence for each commitment. A designed workflow can first ask a reviewer to submit the commitment being checked, then pass that text to the next step. Compare the actual submission with the downstream input, checking that the review subject has not shifted from service performance to transaction status. Form completion records receipt of input; fulfilment requires the corresponding business record.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Proposed input or route | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Form input | Reviewer submits the service commitment being checked | The same clause reaches the next step, without becoming settlement status |
| User selection | Proposed options: supply repair material or hand over to after-sales | Each option follows its connected branch |
| Interaction state | Test waiting and completed submission separately | Input actually reaches the receiving step |
| Output handoff | Inspect commitment, repair-date text and selection separately | Entering a branch is not presented as an established breach |
| External operations | Connect an actual interface for logistics lookup or a handover-status write | External response, missing receipt and resulting record kept separately |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Form input node | Submitted form values pass to subsequent steps. |
User-selection node | Execution follows the connected selected branch. |
Interaction-state check | Inspect waiting and post-submission states. |
Output handoff check | Compare values passed between steps. |
External-operation responsibility | External business operations require an implementation. |
Three common errors
- If a submitted service promise becomes a completed-transaction status downstream, compare entered wording and received values to locate the substituted subject.
- If repair within warranty becomes breach, inspect warranty scope and the repair record. Repair may be part of service; the two terms establish no conflict.
- If a proof-of-delivery choice receives no tracking or receipt evidence but the workflow claims fulfillment, inspect the branch and actual material. Continuation replaces no delivery record.
How to verify the setup
A contractual delivery date without tracking information or proof of receipt leaves actual delivery unsupported. Define the text accepted by a document-request path and the receiving step, then test waiting and post-submission value transfer separately. A logistics lookup or handover-status write needs an actual business interface, with its response and resulting record inspected. Acceptance requires more than connected nodes and a completed form: record the receipts actually obtained, evidence still missing and the stage reached by any external operation.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Business Certification Documents, Inquiry and Quotation Sheet, Electronic Contract and Platform Settlement Statement |
| Candidate sources | B2B Platform, National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, Payment Transaction Records and Logistics Tracking |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |