What the documents look like
Advertising placement in this category adjusts pricing against traffic and conversion in near real time, so the working materials differ from platform promotion enrollment, which turns mainly on platform activity review. Day-to-day documents concentrate on placement plans, keyword reports, audience package descriptions and conversion attribution tables. These materials are aggregated from Juliang Qianchuan, JD Kuaiche, Alimama and store transaction data, and the stated update frequency is daily or hourly. The order fulfillment and after-sales question-answering stage has to place advertising-side materials alongside order status statements and after-sales requests inside one workflow for cross-checking. Subject, period and field definitions frequently diverge between these materials.
For workflow routing, the practical consequence is that collected values and material statements must be matched on the same subject, the same period and the same field before any routing decision is treated as supported. A statement that a placement plan has been submitted for platform review is a stage fact, not an approval fact. A work order marked as awaiting merchant confirmation is a pending state, not an executed refund.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the required information the user submits and passes that information to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node with the same interaction-state behavior; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The interaction state is recorded by the interaction node itself. No separate global state switch is documented.
Collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval results do not constitute authorization, and a similarity score does not perform permission or entity isolation. A pending request is not an approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Material sentence one: "Placement plan number A-001, placement period 1 March 2026 to 31 March 2026, owning brand 'Morning Star', plan status submitted and awaiting platform review." Material sentence two: "After-sales work order number T-009, linked order number O-20260315-07, application date 20 March 2026, current status awaiting merchant confirmation." Draft sentence to be assessed: "Plan A-001 has received platform approval and may be used to execute an order refund." The comparison checks subject, object, status and effective scope. The material records only submitted and awaiting platform review, with no approval recorded. Awaiting merchant confirmation does not equal an executed refund. The draft sentence is not supported by the material.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below is tied to the sample above and lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and the primary task. The hypothetical starting values are for paper comparison only and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Basis and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect plan number, order number, after-sales request | Compare field values against the material text and confirm they match the sample |
| User Selection node | Set a yes/no branch | Verify branch connections item by item and confirm the corresponding branch runs after a choice |
| Interaction state check | State recorded after triggering | Check against the documented explanation; no separate global switch is set |
| Output handover check | Pass collected information to later nodes | Compare output against input item by item and confirm the receiving object |
| External operation separation | Order writes connect to a separate business interface | Confirm no write or synchronization is declared inside the node |
| Retrieval scope check | State the access-right scope | Record the gap when missing; do not run cross-model association |
The Form Input starting value was chosen because the sample requires a plan number, an order number and an after-sales request as the minimum set for cross-checking. The User Selection starting value was chosen because the sample needs one decision point between proceeding and holding. These are paper comparison points, not documented defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating "submitted and awaiting platform review" in the material as approved. The input is the sample material text, the comparison object is the status field, and the observable result is that the two values differ, so the draft claim is unsupported.
- Treating "awaiting merchant confirmation" as an executed refund. The input is the after-sales work order text, the comparison object is the work order status, and the observable result is that the status and the requested action do not match, so the request remains pending verification.
- Treating a retrieval result or similarity score as an authorization basis. The input is a retrieval return record, the comparison object is the authorization scope statement, and the observable result is that the record carries no authorization field, so retrieval cannot be used to execute the action.
How to verify the setup
- Check one: input the sample text "submitted and awaiting platform review", compare it against the draft sentence "has received platform approval", and observe that the status fields differ. The draft sentence is unsupported.
- Check two: input the work order text "awaiting merchant confirmation", compare it against the request "execute an order refund", and observe that the status and the action do not match. The request has not been executed.
- Check three: input a retrieval return record, compare it against the authorization scope statement, and observe that the record carries no authorization field. Retrieval does not constitute authorization.
All three checks are limited to paper samples; no actual test is claimed. For empty-result handover, a clearly stated paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns empty. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; verify the identifier first and exclude non-matching libraries rather than running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls. The optional paths listed in the overall document flowchart do not mean every request executes all of them: image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires a model and must be enabled by configuration.