What the documents look like
Livestream after-sales work clusters after a single broadcast session, and refund requests are strongly tied to what the host promised on air. This page covers one task: drafting product and marketing copy. The material being checked comes from livestream order lists, refund applications, reshipment orders and script templates. These materials update after each session or daily.
Copy drafting has to confirm whether a promotional sentence is supported inside the scope of those materials. The relevant fields are the subject, the product object, the refund or reshipment status, and the validity period of the promise. A sentence about refunds or gifts cannot be checked against a document that does not carry those fields.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
When the Form Input node triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits for the user to fill in required information and submit. After submission the collected form values are passed to later nodes. The User Selection node also triggers the interactive state, and when the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and runs the corresponding branch.
Neither node carries business database functions. Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations need to be implemented in an external system or in later nodes. A pending request is not approval, and an offered option is not execution. Retrieval does not perform authorization, and a relevance score does not act as a category, entity or permission filter.
Hypothetical paper exercise. The source material reads: "This session's livestream order numbers A-001 to A-050; refund application status is submitted; reshipment order status is awaiting warehouse confirmation; the host promised the gift would be dispatched within seven days after the session ended." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "All refunds for this session's orders have been completed, and all gifts have been dispatched." The subject being checked is A-001 to A-050, the objects are the refund application and the reshipment order, the status values are submitted and awaiting warehouse confirmation, and the validity scope is seven days. The draft sentence shares the same subject and the same objects as the source material, and its status values are mutually exclusive with the recorded ones, so it is judged unsupported. The material does not record actual dispatch of the gift; that part remains an evidence gap.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Assumed starting point for this exercise | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Fields collected by the Form Input node | Order number, refund status, reshipment order status | After submission, compare the field values received by later nodes |
| Required information list | Subject, object, status, validity scope | Test each item missing, then test with the item supplied |
| User Selection branches | Supported, unsupported, to be verified | After a choice, inspect which branch executes |
| Interactive state waiting | State recorded and waiting for submission after trigger | Observe whether the conversation enters the interactive state |
| Downstream division of work | Field validation and write-back implemented by an external system | Check whether later nodes receive the values |
The starting point is chosen because judging this page's copy requires all four pieces of information: subject, object, status and validity scope. If any one is missing, the same-field comparison cannot be completed. The comparison target is the value of the same field in the source material. This starting point is an assumed setting for this exercise, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a similarity setting as a permission or entity filter. Retrieval does not handle authorization, and a similarity score does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. The check input is the retrieval result set, the comparison target is the record ownership identifier, and the observable result is whether records outside the target subject appear.
- Treating a pending-review status as completed processing. A pending review does not demonstrate the absence of operating permission and does not equal execution. The check input is the refund application status field, the comparison target is the source material's status value, and the observable result is whether the two agree.
- Associating libraries across different vector models. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together. The check input is the vector model identifier of each library, the comparison target is whether the model identifiers match, and the observable result is that non-matching libraries are excluded and the actual observation is recorded.
How to verify the setup
- Using the hypothetical source material and draft sentence above, input order numbers A-001 to A-050, refund status submitted, reshipment order status awaiting warehouse confirmation, and validity scope seven days. Compare the same-field values of the draft sentence against the source material. The condition is met when the draft sentence is judged unsupported and the gift dispatch record is retained as an evidence gap.
- Using the required information list, input two sets of values: one with the subject missing and one with the subject supplied. Compare the field set received by later nodes. The condition is met when the missing case delivers an incomplete field set and the supplied case delivers the complete field set.
- Using the User Selection node, input the option "unsupported". Compare the executed branch. The condition is met when the branch corresponding to "unsupported" executes and the interactive state continues downward after submission.
These checks state expected behaviour; they do not claim that a test, deployment or approval has taken place. Where the material does not record a field, that field remains unknown.