What the documents look like
Brand after-sales repair service centres on warranty responsibility and physical repair points. This differs from after-sales handling on e-commerce platforms, which centres on platform refunds. The main data sources are the after-sales system, store orders, repair point feedback and the national three-guarantee catalogue. The documents handled day to day are warranty cards, repair work orders, inspection reports and replacement approvals. Data updates per order and daily.
These materials determine what may appear in product and marketing copy. A sentence that states warranty scope, repair time limits or replacement conditions requires supporting warranty card, work order or approval material. At this step the workflow routing task is to connect material collection, human judgement and copy drafting into checkable steps. Interaction nodes collect values and branch on choices. Business writes and external synchronisation require separate interfaces.
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 completes the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When the user makes a selection, the node judges that selection and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly.
The constraint is that interaction nodes only collect values and branch on choices. Whether a copy sentence is supported by material must still be compared sentence by sentence. A node submission action does not establish that verification has occurred. The same-vector-model requirement for knowledge reference applies only to associated retrieval itself and does not extend to business registration sites or other external systems. A relevance score does not perform permission or entity isolation. Retrieval does not constitute authorisation. For empty-reference handling, a clearly labelled paper input of [] can be used to check downstream design.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The material source text is: "This unit's warranty card states a whole-machine warranty period of twelve months, counted from the date the purchase invoice is issued." "Repair work order number WX-2024-0311 records a mainboard replacement, with repair point feedback dated 11 March 2024." "The replacement approval form status is pending review." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This brand undertakes to complete a replacement within three days for mainboard faults." The subject required for judgement is the holder of this unit's warranty card; the object is a mainboard fault; the status is replacement approval pending review; the effective scope is within the warranty period. This sample is a paper exercise and does not involve a real customer or number.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Relationship to this page's documents |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Documented official behaviour | Enters interaction state on trigger, collects required information and passes it to later nodes |
| User Selection node | Documented official behaviour | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a selection; verify each branch connection |
| Output handover check | Implementation check | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes; compare each output against its input |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | State recording is behaviour of the interaction node; no separate global state recording switch is documented |
| External operation division | Implementation check | Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or later process |
| Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Hypothetical value | Draft sentence checking starts from the three material source sentences, compared sentence by sentence against their supported scope and against the time limit and status the draft sentence asserts |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as material verification. Input: the three material source sentences above and the draft sentence. Compare the draft sentence's assertion of "replacement completed within three days" against the pending review status of the replacement approval form. Observable result: the material states no time limit and the approval is not complete, so the sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a relevance score as a permission or entity filter. Input: the similarity value returned by retrieval. Compare it against the authorisation scope. Observable result: the score does not exclude unauthorised records, and retrieval does not constitute authorisation.
- Treating the interaction node's state recording as a global snapshot guarantee. Input: the conversation state after the Form Input node triggers. Compare the documented state recording behaviour against the imagined global switch. Observable result: the documents do not describe that switch, so the configuration item has no basis.
How to verify the setup
- Using the hypothetical material source text and draft sentence above, compare the draft sentence's asserted subject, object, status and effective scope sentence by sentence. Observe whether a time limit or an effective conclusion not stated in the material appears. If it does, the sentence is unsupported and the evidence gap remains open.
- Using a paper input of [], check the empty-reference handover. Observe whether downstream nodes branch according to the empty input design. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
- Check the knowledge base identifier and the vector model identifier, and exclude knowledge bases with different vector models from being associated together. Observe and record the actual return. Do not infer missed recall or redundant results.