What the documents look like
Brand member private-domain operations draw on CRM systems, enterprise messaging, POS purchase records and mini-program behavior data. The working documents in this category are member tag tables, outreach plans, coupon rules and privacy authorization records. Compared with direct-store operations, this category centers on customer data and repeat-purchase outreach, and it does not handle store scheduling. The order fulfillment and after-sales question task requires matching member identity, order status, after-sales request and authorization scope against one another. Workflow routing carries the responsibility of collecting information inside a conversation, judging branches and passing results to later nodes. Data refreshes daily or weekly; that cadence affects the material refresh cycle and does not change the execution conditions of the workflow nodes themselves.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node and the user selection node both belong to the user interaction node type. When either is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The form input node collects required information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node judges the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and both trigger execution.
Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a downstream process. Retrieval or form collection does not constitute authorized execution. The interaction state record is the node's own behavior; no separate global state-recording switch is documented. When collected information is explicitly passed to a later retrieval, judgment or interface node, the output and the input need to be compared item by item.
Configuration and implementation checks
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: Member A submitted an after-sales request on 1 March 2025, order number HYP-2025-0301-001, request type return. The privacy authorization record shows an authorization scope of order fulfillment and after-sales handling, valid from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. The draft sentence under review is: "Member A's return request has entered the handling process, and the refund will be completed within three working days."
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Correspondence to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect order number, request type, contact method | Corresponds to HYP-2025-0301-001 and the return type |
| User selection node | Set a "confirm submission of after-sales request" branch | Executes the "yes" branch based on Member A's choice |
| Interaction state check | Record state after triggering, wait for the user to complete interaction | The submission action in the sample triggers the state record |
| Output handoff check | Pass form information to a later judgment node | Order number and request type pass downstream |
| External action division | Refund and order writes require a separate business interface | The refund action in the draft sentence is not completed inside the node |
| Authorization scope check | Compare the validity period and scope of the privacy authorization record | 1 March 2025 falls inside the authorization validity period |
The starting values above are chosen for this hypothetical exercise so that a dated sample sits inside a stated validity window; they are not official defaults. The comparison method is to place the sample date against the authorization validity period and the sample order number against the form output field.
Three common errors
- Treating information collected by the form input node as the basis for authorized execution. In the sample, Member A submits a return request; the form collects the order number and request type, and the refund operation requires a separate business interface. The check is to input the form output fields, compare whether a downstream interface call record exists, and observe that the form output only enters the judgment node and does not trigger a refund.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as an automatic judgment. In the sample, Member A chooses to confirm submission and the "yes" branch executes; that branch indicates only the flow direction and does not indicate that the after-sales review passed. The check is to input the user selection result, compare the branch connection with the following node, and observe that the "yes" branch connects to an information collection node and does not connect to an approval or refund node.
- Treating retrieval results or similarity scores as a permission filter. In the sample, the validity period and scope of the privacy authorization record require manual comparison, and the vector model requirement of the retrieval library cannot be extended to require the same model in an external system. The check is to input the retrieval query and the authorization record, compare whether the returned results contain orders outside the authorization scope, and observe that retrieval results need item-by-item comparison with the authorization record before any judgment.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: Input the hypothetical sample text "Member A submitted an after-sales request on 1 March 2025, order number HYP-2025-0301-001, request type return; the privacy authorization record shows an authorization scope of order fulfillment and after-sales handling, valid from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025" together with the draft sentence "Member A's return request has entered the handling process, and the refund will be completed within three working days." Compare the refund completion time in the draft sentence with whether a refund execution record exists in the sample. The sample does not state a refund execution record, so the refund completion time in the draft sentence is unsupported and should be marked as pending verification.
- Verification two: Input the output fields of the form input node and the downstream node connections, and compare whether order number HYP-2025-0301-001 is passed to the judgment node. The expected observation is that the form output contains the order number and request type, and the judgment node receives that output, which satisfies the condition.
- Verification three: Input the branch configuration of the user selection node and Member A's choice result in the sample, and compare the connection target of the "yes" branch. The expected observation is that the "yes" branch connects to an information collection node and does not connect to a refund interface, which satisfies the condition.
These verifications state expected observations for the paper exercise. They do not record a completed test, an approval or a refund. Where the sample is silent, the gap remains open.