What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selling happens before a broadcast. The question under review is whether a product can be sold and whether it suits on-camera demonstration. The working documents are sample evaluation forms, inspection agency reports, supplier qualification files and prohibited-item lists. Selection managers, supply chain business development staff and quality inspection specialists handle these materials together.
For order fulfillment and after-sales question handling, these materials must be matched to a specific order or after-sales request. The workflow routing step carries two kinds of output forward: conclusions drawn from document comparison, and values a user submits through interaction nodes. The form input node enters an interaction state when triggered, records the workflow state, and after the user completes required fields and submits, collects that information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user interaction node; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Output from either node is a user-submitted value. It does not constitute a business determination about supplier qualification, inspection conclusions or prohibited-item status.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Conclusions from checking the sample evaluation form, inspection report, supplier qualification and prohibited-item list need to connect with order fulfillment and after-sales requests inside one workflow. Interaction nodes record workflow state. A retrieval result and a submitted form value cannot serve as authorization to execute. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text supplied for comparison reads as follows. A sample evaluation form for a batch states "date submitted for inspection 10 March 2025, inspection agency report number JC-2025-0310, conclusion meets broadcast requirements." The supplier qualification file states "business license valid until 31 August 2026." The prohibited-item list states "this category is not currently within the prohibited scope." One draft sentence to be assessed reads: "This batch has completed quality inspection and meets broadcast conditions, so order fulfillment can be arranged directly." This draft sentence merges an inspection conclusion with broadcast authorization. The materials do not state that broadcast approval has been completed.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Relationship to the sample on this page |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | User interaction node | Collects required fields of the after-sales request and passes them to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | User interaction node | Puts the question "has the inspection report been checked" to the user and executes the "yes" branch |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | Verifies the state-recording behavior of interaction nodes; no separate global switch is set |
| Output handoff check | Implementation check | Compares collected information item by item against the inputs of later retrieval and judgment nodes |
| External operation split | Implementation check | Order writes and external synchronization connect to a business interface and are not completed in this node |
| Retrieval scope check | Implementation check | Verifies the retrieval library identifier and vector model, and excludes those that do not match |
The hypothetical starting point for this trial is: take the phrase "order fulfillment can be arranged directly" from the draft sentence as the text to be assessed and compare it sentence by sentence against the source materials. This starting point is chosen because the draft sentence contains a status judgment, which makes it possible to observe whether the output handoff distinguishes an inspection conclusion from broadcast authorization. Compare against "conclusion meets broadcast requirements" in the source text and observe whether the draft sentence adds an authorization statement the materials do not contain.
Three common errors
- Treating an after-sales request collected by the form input node as an already-verified inspection conclusion. The input is a user-submitted value; the comparison object is the source text of the sample evaluation form; the observable result is whether the draft sentence restates a conclusion the materials do not contain.
- Treating execution of the "yes" branch from the user selection node as completed broadcast authorization. The input is the user's selection action; the comparison object is whether the materials state an approval status; the observable result is whether branch execution is written as an authorization fact.
- Treating a relevant document returned by retrieval as a basis for permission or entity isolation. The input is the retrieval result; the comparison object is the retrieval library identifier and vector model; the observable result is whether cross-model joint association appears or whether relevance is used as a permission judgment.
How to verify the setup
- Input the draft sentence and the source materials from the hypothetical sample. Compare whether the draft sentence contains an authorization statement the materials do not contain, such as "order fulfillment can be arranged directly." Observe whether the output keeps that gap as pending verification. The expected result is that the gap remains visible and is not filled by inference.
- Input the result of the "yes" branch from the user selection node. Compare whether the materials state a broadcast approval status. Observe whether branch execution is recorded as completed authorization. The expected result is that branch execution is recorded as a user choice, not as an approval fact.
- Input the retrieval library identifier and vector model information. Compare whether the library identifiers are consistent, exclude those that do not match and record the actual observation. For empty-result handoff, a clearly stated paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design; this does not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. The expected result is that mismatched libraries are excluded before any association is attempted, and that no cross-model retrieval is run to compare missed recall.