What the documents look like
This category covers truthfulness of advertising claims and presentation of qualification material for platform product titles and detail pages. It does not cover parcel delivery, which belongs to platform shipping operations. The working documents are the product title table, detail page assets, the advertising prohibited-word list, and quality inspection reports. Material changes weekly and at each new listing.
For this page the task is drafting product and marketing copy, and the interactive step must collect the proposed sentence, the corresponding source material text, and the assessment conclusion. The source material supplies the subject, the object of use, the status or conclusion, and the validity scope that a reviewer compares against. The proposed sentence is the text under assessment. Neither the product title table nor the detail page assets decide on their own whether a claim is supported; they are inputs to the comparison.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The form input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits until the user completes the interaction. After the user fills the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to later nodes. The node does not include a business database function of its own.
The user selection node is also a user interaction node. It triggers the same interaction state, records the workflow state, and waits. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the branch for the selected option. This node is a branch mechanism for a decision question; it does not act as a personnel directory or a business data selector.
Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations require an external system or later nodes. The official documents do not describe built-in approval or write-back in these nodes.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample, used only for this page. Source material text: "This product implements standard Q/ABC 001-2024, is suitable for indoor lighting, inspection date March 2025, and the inspection conclusion is that the inspected items meet the requirements." Proposed sentence: "This product is certified by a national authoritative body and is suitable for all outdoor environments." Assessment task: check whether the proposed sentence is supported by the source material text. Material subject: a product. Object: indoor lighting scope of use. Status: inspected items meet the requirements. Valid scope: that standard and that inspection date. The proposed sentence changes the scope of use to outdoor environments and adds a national authoritative body certification statement. The source material text does not record that certification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Use on this page | Basis and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect the proposed sentence, source material text, and assessment conclusion | Official document states submitted information passes to later nodes and the node has no built-in database |
| User selection node | Execute a branch according to the assessment conclusion | Official document states the node evaluates the user choice and executes the branch |
| Required information check | List the proposed sentence and source material text as items that cannot be absent | Implementation check item; when an item is missing, wait for it to be supplied |
| Interaction state | Record state on trigger and wait for submission | Official document states the workflow continues after the interaction completes |
| Downstream division of work | Approval and write-back are implemented by an external system | Official document does not describe built-in approval or write-back in these nodes |
| Starting scope for this exercise | One proposed sentence and one source material text | Hypothetical starting value chosen for line-by-line comparison against the source material fields |
The starting scope above is a hypothetical value for this paper exercise, selected so that each proposed sentence can be compared field by field against one source material text. It is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a certification statement absent from the source material as a verified fact. Check input: the source material text and the proposed sentence. Comparison: whether both contain the same certification statement. Observable result: the source material text contains no such statement, so the certification claim is unsupported.
- Rewriting the indoor lighting scope of use directly as outdoor environments. Check input: the scope-of-use field in the source material text and the scope-of-use field in the proposed sentence. Comparison: whether the two values are identical. Observable result: the values differ, so the claim is pending verification, not a confirmed contradiction.
- Treating form submission as completed approval. Check input: the form submission record and the approval record. Comparison: whether an approval conclusion exists. Observable result: the approval record is absent, so submission does not establish approval.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the source material text and proposed sentence from the hypothetical sample above. Compare whether the proposed sentence contains a certification statement absent from the source material text. When the source material text has no such statement, record the claim as unsupported and keep the evidence gap open.
- Enter the scope-of-use field from the source material text and the scope-of-use field from the proposed sentence in the hypothetical sample. Compare the two values. When they differ, record the item as pending verification. Do not record it as a denial or a contradiction, because the source material does not state an exclusive scope.
- Enter the form submission record from the hypothetical sample. Compare whether an approval conclusion exists. When the approval conclusion is absent, record the evidence gap. A pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not execution.
For the retrieval side, similarity scores and relevance values do not filter by category, entity, or permission. Retrieval is not authorization. The documented conditions for same-model retrieval association, empty-reference output, and knowledge-reference limits remain as documented; this page does not restate them as settings for the form nodes. When a reference set returns empty, the downstream design can be checked against a clearly labelled paper input of an empty list, and the actual observation is recorded without claiming that any particular query must return an empty result.