What the documents look like
For general trade export declaration, copy drafting draws on material held in China International Trade Single Window, the customs code library, forwarder bills of lading and enterprise ERP. Each declaration produces an export declaration form, a commercial invoice, a packing list and a contract. Fields for product name, specification, quantity and trade terms need to agree across these documents. Compared with general trade import declaration, export declaration also affects export tax refund voucher matching, so a product description in drafted copy that diverges from the declaration classification can obstruct a later refund step. Typical practitioners include foreign trade companies, customs brokers and documentation staff. The most time-consuming steps are classifying commodity codes, completing the declaration form and checking freight and insurance. Drafting therefore cannot be generated independently of the existing declaration and invoice fields.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Workflow routing for this task breaks copy drafting into checkable steps. The Form Input node is a user interaction node: when triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. Required fields are collected and, on submission, passed to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node; when the user makes a selection, the node evaluates that selection and executes the corresponding “yes” branch. The interaction state is recorded by the interaction node itself; no separate global state-recording switch is documented. Collected information must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, evaluation or interface nodes, and output must be compared item by item against input. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or downstream process; the nodes do not perform those business actions.
Hypothetical paper exercise: on 10 March 2025, a documentation clerk at a foreign trade company handles one shipment of plastic tableware exported to Southeast Asia. The commercial invoice states: “Product name: plastic tableware; specification: melamine material, heat resistance 120°C; quantity: 5,000 sets; trade terms: FOB.” The export declaration form states: “Commodity code: 3924100000; product name: plastic tableware; quantity: 5,000 sets; trade terms: FOB.” The draft sentence to be assessed is: “This product uses melamine material, withstands 120°C, and is suitable for microwave heating.” The comparison is limited to the invoice and declaration text above; it does not extend to other batches or to test reports not provided.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting on this page | Basis and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect product name, specification, quantity, trade terms | Node triggers interaction state; on submission the values pass to later nodes |
| User Selection node | Decide whether the draft sentence enters a manual review branch | After the user selects, the corresponding “yes” branch executes |
| Information passing | Pass form-collected fields to the copy comparison node | Compare output against input item by item and confirm field completeness |
| Retrieval scope | Limited to this declaration and invoice text | Same-vector-model library association stays within this library; it does not extend to external systems |
| Empty-result handling | Record the gap when the paper input is [] | Do not claim that a fabricated rule retrieval necessarily returns [] |
| External action | Document backfill connects to a separate business interface | The node does not perform writes or synchronization |
Three common errors
- Treating “suitable for microwave heating” in the draft sentence as directly contradicted by the invoice text. The invoice states heat resistance 120°C and does not mention microwave suitability. That wording is unsupported and requires a test report or removal; it is not a negation or a conflict.
- Treating the “yes” branch of the User Selection node as automatic approval. The node only evaluates the selection and executes a branch. An approval action requires a separate business interface; branch execution does not equal completed approval.
- Claiming that retrieval necessarily returns [] when the result is empty. Empty-result handling can use an explicit paper input of [] to check downstream design. Actual retrieval results must be recorded as observed; the returned content cannot be presupposed.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the invoice text and declaration text from the hypothetical exercise, then compare the draft sentence “suitable for microwave heating” against the source wording “heat resistance 120°C.” If the source does not state microwave suitability, record the sentence as unsupported rather than marking it as contradictory.
- Enter the user selection request from the hypothetical exercise and compare the selection result against the branch connection. If “yes” is selected, observe whether the manual review branch is entered. If the branch is not connected or does not execute, record it as pending verification.
- Enter the paper empty result [] and compare whether the downstream node records the gap. If the downstream node treats the empty result as a pass, record a configuration gap. If it records the gap and waits for manual completion, the condition is met.