What the documents look like
This page covers workflow routing for order fulfilment and after-sales questions in the trade and FX administration category. The working materials are collection receipts, trade contracts, invoices, and foreign-exchange business registration records. The time-consuming steps are checking the collection party, handling settlement, and explaining the trade background. These materials update per transaction and per month, so the workflow organises interaction around each individual collection record and gathers the necessary fields before later judgement steps.
The material features shape the routing design. The collection party must be checked against the contract and invoice, the trade background statement must be attached, and the registration records must fall within their valid scope. The form input node and the user selection node carry information collection and branch selection. An interaction state is recorded when either node is triggered.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node belongs to the user interaction group. 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 the information the user fills in and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node also belongs to the user interaction group. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and trigger execution.
The collected fields must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes, and output must be compared against input item by item. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or later process. The nodes themselves do not perform those business actions. A retrieval result is not an authorisation, and a form collects values rather than verifying them.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a trade enterprise finance staff member submits an after-sales handover request. The draft sentence is "This collection has completed settlement and the order can be closed." The material text supplied for checking contains three sentences. First, "The collection receipt shows the receiving party is Company A and the amount matches the contract." Second, "The trade contract buyer is Company A and the subject matter is one batch of goods." Third, "The foreign-exchange business registration record is in submitted status and has no approval conclusion." The question is whether the draft sentence's "has completed settlement" and "the order can be closed" are supported by the material. The material shows only that the registration record was submitted. It does not show settlement completion, and it does not show the conditions for closing the order. This exercise is a paper scenario. No system was actually submitted to.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below centres on checking the exercise above. It lists only documented settings or implementation check items.
| Configuration item | Type | Check description |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | User interaction | Enters an interaction state when triggered, collects required information, and passes it to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | User interaction | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice; verify branch connections one by one |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | Recording state is behaviour of the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch is set or claimed |
| Output handover check | Implementation check | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes and compare output with input item by item |
| External action division | Implementation check | Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or later process |
The hypothetical starting value for this exercise: the sample's "registration record submitted" is set as pending verification, because the material states no approval conclusion. The comparison object is the approval conclusion record for the same field. If later material shows approval or return, the field is updated at that point.
Three common errors
- Treating the user selection node's "yes" branch as completed business authorisation. In the sample, the user selects "continue processing." The node only executes the branch. It does not indicate that settlement is complete or that the order can be closed. For the check, input the sample draft sentence and the material text, compare whether "has completed settlement" has a corresponding record, and observe that the material does not state it. Record this as pending verification.
- Treating a field collected by the form as an already verified fact. In the sample, the form collects "collection party: Company A." This field comes from user input. The material text separately requires comparison with the contract buyer. For the check, input the form value and the contract buyer field, compare whether they are the same party, and record agreement when they agree and a difference when they do not.
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorised execution. In the sample, a registration record entry is retrieved. A retrieval result does not constitute approval. For the check, input the retrieved entry and the approval status field, compare whether the entry states an approval conclusion, and observe that it does not. Preserve the evidence gap and do not infer an approval result.
How to verify the setup
- For the sample draft sentence "This collection has completed settlement and the order can be closed," input the three material sentences, compare "has completed settlement" with the registration record's approval conclusion field, and observe that the material states no approval conclusion. Judge it as unsupported. Do not record it as completed and do not record it as contradictory.
- For the sample handover request, input the collection party value gathered by the form and the contract buyer field, compare whether they are the same party, the same period, and the same field, and record agreement when they agree. When any item is missing, record a gap. Do not fabricate authorisation or effective clauses.
- For the sample's "registration record submitted" status, input that status and the pending-review status, compare whether they are the same fact, and observe that pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission and does not equal approval. Keep it as pending verification. All three verifications are paper expectations and were not actually executed.