What the documents look like
Livestream after-sales handling differs from ordinary platform after-sales work because refund requests tend to arrive in concentrated bursts after a single broadcast, and the handling rhythm is closely tied to what the host promised on air. The daily materials are livestream order lists, refund applications, reshipment orders and script templates. These come from shop after-sales systems, customer-service IM, warehouse WMS and logistics tracking. Identifying burst refunds, arranging reshipments for wrong or missing items, and giving one consistent explanation of host promises are the three most time-consuming steps. Updates arrive after each broadcast and daily. This page does not derive batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms from that update frequency.
Inside workflow routing, these materials enter a form input node or a user selection node, and the conversation enters an interaction state. The collected information is passed to later nodes. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization need a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and form collection do not by themselves authorize execution.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When a form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user fills in the required information and submits, the node passes that information to later nodes. A user selection node judges the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and both trigger execution. The interaction-state record is behavior of the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch is documented. Output handoff must be compared item by item, confirming that collected information is clearly passed to a later retrieval, judgment or interface node.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads, "Livestream order list row A-17: order number H-2401, buyer submitted a refund application on 12 April, reason field says 'host said refundable', current status pending review. Reshipment order row B-03 for the same period: same order number H-2401, reshipment item is the same model, reshipment order status awaiting warehouse dispatch." The draft sentence to be judged is, "The refund application for order H-2401 has been approved, and the reshipment order should be cancelled directly." That draft treats pending review as approved and treats awaiting warehouse dispatch as cancellable. Both points lack evidence.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented behavior or implementation check | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enters interaction state when triggered, collects required information, passes it on after submission | Used to collect order number, application reason and current status fields |
| User selection node | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice; verify each branch connection | Used to separate the refund check path from the reshipment check path |
| Interaction-state check | Recording state is interaction-node behavior; no separate global state-recording switch is documented | Check whether the sample continues downward after entering interaction state |
| Output handoff check | Collected information is clearly passed to a later retrieval, judgment or interface node; compare output against input item by item | Check whether order number and status fields are passed completely |
| External action division | Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization need a separate business interface or later process | Refund approval and reshipment cancellation are not completed by this node |
Hypothetical starting point for this exercise: set the form input node's required fields to order number and application reason. The reason for this choice is that these two fields are enough to locate the record in the sample. The comparison method is to check item by item whether the submitted output contains these two fields. This starting point is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review status as approved. In the sample the refund application status is pending review, while the draft sentence says approved. The input and comparison object is the status field, and the observable result is that the status values do not match.
- Treating an awaiting-dispatch reshipment order as cancellable. In the sample the reshipment order status is awaiting warehouse dispatch, while the draft sentence asks for direct cancellation. The input and comparison object is the reshipment order status field, and the observable result is that the cancellation action lacks a basis.
- Treating retrieval or form collection as authorized execution. In the sample the form only collects order number and application reason and produces no approval or cancellation action. The input and comparison object is the node output against the business action, and the observable result is that the output contains no approval or cancellation result.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, then compare "approved" in the draft with "pending review" in the source. The observable result is that the two are inconsistent, so the sentence is not supported.
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, then compare "cancelled directly" in the draft with "awaiting warehouse dispatch" in the source. The observable result is that the cancellation lacks a basis, and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Input the sample source text and the form output, then compare whether the output contains the order number and application reason. The observable result is that handoff holds when both fields are present; if the output is empty or a field is missing, record it as failed and keep the gap.
All of the above is paper-based checking. No actual deployment, approval or refund was performed.