What the documents look like
In livestream product selection and sample quality inspection, the screening happens before a broadcast goes live. The question being answered is whether a product can be sold and whether it suits on-camera demonstration. Work therefore rests on four recurring document types: the sample evaluation form, the quality inspection report, supplier qualifications, and the prohibited-items list. These materials update weekly and per product.
The state of each document shapes what copy drafting can rely on. A quality inspection report may be issued with a conclusion or still pending one. Supplier qualifications may be within validity, expired, or awaiting renewal. The prohibited-items list is maintained against platform definitions and needs item-by-item comparison with the product's actual category. The sample evaluation form records trial conclusions and comes from a different source than a testing-agency report; the two cannot substitute for each other.
These distinctions matter because a marketing sentence is only as defensible as the material behind it. A trial note about noise level does not sit in the same field as an electrical-safety conclusion, and a valid business licence does not by itself say whether an item may be listed.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user-interaction node. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. The node collects required information, and after submission passes what the user entered to later nodes. The User Selection node behaves in the same interaction family: when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes record workflow state as part of their own behaviour. The documentation does not describe a global state-recording switch, so routing is designed around each node's stated behaviour.
Collected values such as sample number, report number, and qualification status must be passed explicitly to downstream retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes, with outputs compared against inputs item by item. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronisation are business actions that require a separate business interface or a later process. The interaction nodes do not perform those actions themselves.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a supplier submits a batch of desktop fans. The sample evaluation form reads: "Sample number SP-0417. Trial conclusion: runs normally, noise on the high side, recommend the copy does not claim quiet operation." The quality inspection report reads: "Report number QC-0417. Conclusion: electrical safety items meet requirements. Report status: conclusion issued." The supplier qualification reads: "Unified social credit code 9133XXXXXX. Business licence valid until March 2027. Status: valid." The proposed copy sentence is: "This small fan runs quietly, suitable for night use." The comparison object is the proposed sentence against the sample evaluation form text, to judge whether the claim is supported by the material.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below uses the hypothetical sample above and lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and the copy-drafting task.
| Configuration item | Value or check content | Relation to this page's documents |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect three required values: sample number, report number, qualification status | Passed to later nodes after submission |
| User Selection node | Set a "copy releasable" yes branch | Yes branch executes after the user makes a choice |
| Output handover | Pass collected values explicitly to retrieval or judgement nodes | Compare outputs against inputs item by item |
| Interaction state check | Confirm the conversation enters interaction state when triggered | Node behaviour; no separate switch is documented |
| External action split | Order writing, document backfill, external sync connect to separate interfaces | Interaction nodes do not complete business actions |
| Hypothetical trial starting point for this exercise | Proposed-sentence threshold set to require both the sample evaluation form and the quality inspection report | Reason for choosing: the two materials come from different sources, and a single match is insufficient to support a promotional sentence |
Three common errors
- Treating the sample evaluation form's trial conclusion as an inspection conclusion. The form states "noise on the high side, recommend the copy does not claim quiet operation," while the quality inspection report covers only electrical safety items. The fields differ, and neither fills in the other.
- Treating supplier qualification status as direct evidence the product may be sold. The qualification text states only the business licence validity and status. It does not state whether the product appears on the prohibited-items list; the missing part is recorded as a gap.
- Treating the User Selection node's branch as a completed approval. A user choice executes the yes branch. Approval, writing, and synchronisation belong to a separate process. A pending-review state does not show that approval is complete.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical proposed sentence "This small fan runs quietly, suitable for night use" and compare it with the sample evaluation form text. The comparison field is the promotional point against the trial conclusion. If the sentence contains "quietly" while the form records "noise on the high side, recommend not claiming quiet," the sentence is judged unsupported. Expected observation: the sentence is marked for revision and does not enter the release branch.
- Input quality inspection report number QC-0417 and compare it with the proposed sentence. The comparison field is the report's covered items against the promotional point. The report covers electrical safety only, so a noise claim falls outside its scope. Expected observation: the system records a gap and does not generate a supporting conclusion.
- Input an empty result [] and check the downstream design. The comparison object is the retrieval return against the downstream judgement node. If the return is empty, the downstream keeps the gap record and does not fill it in automatically. Expected observation: the gap remains and no fabricated conclusion appears. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; first check identifiers and exclude those that do not match, record actual observations, and do not infer missing or redundant results.
For this feature, the confirmed public technical facts are: the Form Input node enters interaction state when triggered, collects required information, and passes it to later nodes after submission; the User Selection node executes the corresponding yes branch after the user makes a choice, with branch connections verified one by one; interaction state recording is node behaviour and no global state-recording switch is documented or claimed; collected information is passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes with outputs compared against inputs item by item; order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronisation require separate business interfaces or later processes.