What the documents look like
Multi-store matrix operations for order fulfilment and after-sales questions revolve around four document families: store authorization lists, price control tables, cross-territory complaint forms, and monthly sales reports. Compared with single-store advertising, this category centres on cross-store authorization relationships and price order, with data drawn from each platform's merchant back office, ERP channel prices, brand anti-counterfeiting systems, and dealer reports.
An authorization list records the authorization relationship between a store and a brand together with its validity period. A price control table records list prices and promotional price ranges per channel. A cross-territory complaint form records the complained party and the handling stage. A monthly sales report aggregates per-store sales and return figures. These materials update daily or monthly, and routing must be checked against the actual document version in use rather than assuming every document refreshes together.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user fills in the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node: on trigger the conversation enters the interaction state and the workflow state is recorded, and when the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and trigger execution.
Waiting for interaction, recording state, and hiding the dialogue box are existing node behaviours. Collected information must be explicitly passed to subsequent retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes, and outputs compared against inputs item by item. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or downstream process; collected form values do not themselves constitute business verification, approval, or a database write.
Hypothetical drill sample. Source text for checking: "Store authorization list, row 7: Store A, authorized brand A, authorization valid until 31 December 2025, authorization status signed"; "Price control table, row 3: Store A, brand A, recommended retail price range 100 to 120 yuan, current list price 115 yuan"; "Cross-territory complaint form no. 12: complained party Store B, complaint matter low-price sale of brand A goods, handling stage pending verification." Draft sentence to be judged: "Store A sells at the price control table list price within the authorization validity period, so the fulfilment process may continue; the Store B complaint is pending verification and does not enter the after-sales compensation branch for now."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check for this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | On trigger enters the interaction state, collects required information, passes it to subsequent nodes after submission | Collect order number, store name, after-sales type |
| User Selection node | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice; verify branch connections one by one | Decide whether to enter the compensation check branch |
| Output hand-off check | Explicitly pass collected information to subsequent retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes | Compare form values against authorization list and price table |
| Interaction state check | State recording is interaction-node behaviour; no separate global state-recording switch is set | Check whether state is retained during interaction |
| External action division | Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization connect to a separate business interface or downstream process | Compensation execution is not completed inside the form node |
| Retrieval scope check | Check identifiers and exclude non-matching records; do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall | Retrieve documents by store and brand identifier |
The hypothetical starting point for this exercise is: compare the authorization expiry date with the current date, and treat the authorization as valid when the current date falls within the validity period. This starting point is used for this paper check and is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating the store name and after-sales type collected by the Form Input node as the result of authorization verification. The input is the submitted form value; the comparison object is the authorization status field in the authorization list; the observable result is whether the two agree. The form value itself does not indicate that authorization has been verified.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the User Selection node as compensation already executed. The input is the user's choice; the comparison object is the branch connection and the downstream interface node for the after-sales compensation branch; the observable result is whether the branch connects to an actual business interface. The selection action does not constitute compensation execution.
- Treating the "pending verification" stage in a cross-territory complaint form as confirmed cross-territory selling. The input is the handling stage field of the complaint form; the comparison object is the later handling record of the same complaint; the observable result is whether a record of completed verification exists. A pending-verification status does not establish that a violation holds.
How to verify the setup
- Against the authorization list source text for Store A in the hypothetical sample, check whether the draft sentence "Store A within the authorization validity period" agrees with the authorization valid until 31 December 2025 and the current-date comparison. The input is row 7 of the authorization list and the draft sentence; the comparison object is the authorization validity field against the draft wording; the expected observation is that the two agree on the within-validity judgement. If the draft sentence goes beyond the validity period, record it as unsupported.
- Against the cross-territory complaint form source text for Store B in the hypothetical sample, check whether the draft sentence "the Store B complaint is pending verification and does not enter the after-sales compensation branch for now" agrees with the handling stage of pending verification. The input is complaint form no. 12 and the draft sentence; the comparison object is the handling stage field against the draft wording; the expected observation is that the two agree on the pending-verification status. If the draft sentence states confirmed cross-territory selling, record it as inconsistent with the source.
- Against the price control table source text in the hypothetical sample, check whether the draft sentence "sells at the price control table list price" agrees with the current list price of 115 yuan falling inside the recommended retail price range of 100 to 120 yuan. The input is row 3 of the price control table and the draft sentence; the comparison object is the current list price against the recommended retail price range; the expected observation is that the list price falls inside the range. If the list price falls outside the range, record the price check as not passed.