What the documents look like
Brand after-sales repair service centers on warranty responsibility and physical repair outlets. This differs from e-commerce platform after-sales work, which mainly processes platform refunds. The documents handled in daily work include warranty cards, repair work orders, inspection reports, and replacement approvals. Data sources include the after-sales system, store orders, repair outlet feedback, and the national three-guarantees catalog.
Copy drafting for this category must quote the subject, object, status, and validity scope recorded in those documents. A warranty card states a coverage period and a start date. A repair work order records a send-in date and a fault description. An inspection report states a conclusion about the cause of damage. A replacement approval carries an approval outcome produced outside the interactive form step. The form input node collects information that users fill in and passes it to later nodes after submission. It does not carry its own business database function.
For this page the relevant facts are warranty period calculation, the send-in date relative to that period, and whether a drafted marketing sentence matches the source wording. Update frequency does not change how the interactive form behaves, so it is left out.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
Marketing sentences must match the source wording. When a form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits for the user to complete the interaction. After the user fills in the required information and submits, the node collects the form information and passes it to later nodes. A user selection node judges the user's choice and executes a branch. It does not act as a personnel directory or a business data selector. Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations are implemented as needed in external systems or later nodes.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand after-sales center receives a replacement approval handover request submitted by store customer service. The source wording consists of three sentences. First sentence: "The warranty card for this unit states a whole-machine warranty period of twelve months, counted from the date the purchase invoice is issued." Second sentence: "The repair work order records a send-in date in the thirteenth month after purchase, with a fault description of mainboard burnout." Third sentence: "The inspection report concludes that the mainboard burnout is non-human-caused damage." The drafted sentence to be judged is: "This unit is within the warranty period, and the mainboard burnout qualifies for a free replacement."
The warranty card period and start date, the work order send-in date, and the inspection report conclusion are the fields needed to judge the drafted sentence. The replacement approval outcome is not produced by the form. It requires an external system or a later node.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check for this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Can be added repeatedly, triggers execution, collects filled information and passes it to later nodes | Collects warranty card, work order, and report fields from the handover request |
| Required information check | List the subject, object, status, and validity scope that this task cannot omit | Prompts completion when the warranty start date or send-in date is missing |
| User selection node | Executes a branch according to the user's choice; does not act as a business data selector | Branches distinguish "materials complete" from "materials pending" |
| Interaction state | Records workflow state and waits for interaction; continues downward after completion | Waits for store customer service to complete fields before continuing |
| Downstream division of labor | Field validation, approval, and write-back are implemented as needed in external systems or later nodes | The replacement approval outcome is produced by an external system |
| Hypothetical starting value | This page uses "warranty period of twelve months" as the hypothetical check starting point, compared with the work order send-in date in the thirteenth month | The starting value comes from the source wording; it is not an official default |
Three common errors
- Accepting the drafted sentence "this unit is within the warranty period" at face value. The source wording shows a send-in date in the thirteenth month after purchase, which is inconsistent with the twelve-month period stated on the warranty card. The marketing sentence is not supported by the source wording.
- Treating the user selection node as a business data selector. The user selection node only executes a branch according to the user's choice. It does not perform warranty scope judgment or approval authority judgment.
- Treating form input submission as completed approval. The form input node collects information and passes it on. The replacement approval outcome requires an external system or a later node. The submission action does not constitute approval.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences and the drafted sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare "within the warranty period" in the drafted sentence against the twelve-month period and the thirteenth-month send-in date in the source wording. Observe whether a period-inconsistency prompt appears. The expected result is that the drafted sentence is not supported. This expectation is a paper exercise.
- Input a field combination from a handover request that is missing the warranty start date. Compare the required information check items against the filled fields. Observe whether a prompt to complete the missing field appears. The expected result is that the conversation enters the interaction state and waits for completion. No actual test is claimed.
- Input a handover request with complete materials. Compare the branch condition of the user selection node against the request content. Observe whether the "materials complete" branch is entered and the fields are passed to later nodes. The expected result is that execution continues downward, and the approval outcome is still produced by an external system.