What the documents look like
Channel diversion review handles regional and price order. It does not handle rebate amounts. The working materials come from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. The documents handled day to day include diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs.
When these materials enter the copy drafting stage, their role is limited to checking whether a proposed sentence is supported by the material. They do not perform identity certification and they do not execute penalties. Update frequency is weekly and irregular; this page's function does not depend on that frequency, so it is not expanded here.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node is a user interaction node. When it is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and the node waits. After the user completes the required fields and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to subsequent nodes.
The user selection node is also a user interaction node. When it is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a selection, the node judges that selection and executes the corresponding "yes" branch.
Both nodes are user interaction nodes. Their documented behavior is to record workflow state on trigger, hide the dialog box during interaction, and resume the workflow after the user completes the interaction. The documents do not describe a separate global state-recording switch, a submission count limit, an automatic judgment, or a snapshot guarantee. Those items are not configured here.
Retrieval-library association with the same vector model is a constraint on the retrieval library itself. It cannot be extended into a requirement that business registration sites or other external systems also use the same model. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission filtering or entity isolation. Retrieval is not authorization. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material contains three sentences. "Complaint form CX-2026-014 states that 200 units of batch B2405 are agreed for placement in the East China region." "Inspection photograph P-07 shows the same batch number appearing on a shelf in a South China store." "Shipment records show the batch was sent to an East China distributor in April 2026." One draft sentence to be judged is: "This brand's batch is restricted to East China sales only, and all units sold in South China stores are illegal diversion." The draft sentence turns "agreed placement in East China" into an exclusive conclusion. The material does not state an exclusive authorization scope. The photograph shows appearance only; it does not state the store's procurement source. The judgment result is unsupported, and the authorization scope document and the store procurement evidence remain missing.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check on this page | Basis and explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect complaint number, batch number, quantity, and region fields | The node collects required information and passes it to subsequent nodes |
| User selection node | Set a branch for "does the material support the draft sentence" | The node executes the "yes" branch after the user selects |
| Interaction state | Workflow state is recorded when an interaction node triggers | Documented node behavior; no separate global switch is set |
| Output handoff | Pass the judgment result to subsequent nodes | Compare output against input item by item |
| Retrieval association check | Check the vector model identifier first and exclude non-matching libraries | Libraries with different vector models cannot be associated together |
| Empty-result handoff | Use the paper input [] to check downstream design | No claim is made that a fictional rule retrieval must return [] |
Three common errors
- Expanding "East China only" into "all South China sales are illegal diversion." The material states an agreed placement region. It does not state an exclusive authorization. The photograph shows the goods appearing, nothing more. Check: input the three source sentences and the draft sentence, compare the authorization scope field, and treat the appearance of an exclusive conclusion in the draft sentence as not satisfied.
- Treating retrieval similarity as a permission or entity filter. Check: input a cross-region query, compare the returned records against the access rights list, and treat the appearance of unauthorized records as showing that this setting does not perform isolation.
- Treating a user selection branch as an executed penalty. Check: input the sample selection "material insufficient," compare the downstream node, and treat the output of a penalty notice as out of bounds. A penalty requires a separate business interface.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences and the draft sentence, compare "East China only" against the exclusive authorization field, and expect the result to be unsupported with the evidence gap preserved. A definite violation conclusion means the condition is not met.
- Input the paper empty result [], compare the downstream node design, and expect the downstream to process the empty input without producing fictional records.
- Input two retrieval libraries with different vector model identifiers, compare the identifiers, and expect the non-matching library to be excluded and the observation recorded. Do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.