What the documents look like
Dealer rebate calculation happens after the sale. The core work is policy interpretation and financial treatment, which distinguishes it from inventory replenishment. The main data sources are ERP sales, dealer remittances, the contract ledger and the finance system. The typical participants are brand finance staff, channel sales staff and dealer finance staff. Errors produce rebate disputes, channel conflict and incorrect revenue recognition. The documents handled day to day are rebate policies, sales achievement tables, reconciliation statements and red-letter invoices.
For this page the task is product and marketing copy drafting, and the workflow routing step must first collect the material a draft sentence relies on, then decide whether the proposed sentence is supported by that material. A rebate policy states the applicable period and the eligible parties. A sales achievement table states the quantity basis. A reconciliation statement states the amount and the deduction for returned goods. A red-letter invoice states the offset status. These fields together determine whether a given promotional sentence can stand.
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 execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the required information the user submits and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When the user makes a selection, the node evaluates that selection and executes the corresponding branch. Both nodes record workflow state and wait for the user to finish interacting before continuing.
External operations are separated from these nodes. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval recalls material; it does not perform authorization judgment. An empty result can be handled by checking the downstream design against a clearly stated paper input of [].
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source material contains three sentences: "The 2025 third-quarter rebate policy applies to contracted dealers in the East China region." "The sales achievement table states that this dealer's third-quarter remittance achievement rate is 102%." "The reconciliation statement states that the rebate payable after deducting returned goods is RMB 180,000." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This dealer's third-quarter rebate has been received in full." The subject, period and field needed for the judgment are the dealer, 2025 third quarter, and rebate receipt status. The material states only the amount payable. It does not state receipt. The sentence is not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check on this page | Basis and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect dealer name, period and material type | Required information is passed to later nodes after submission |
| User Selection node | Options "material supported", "not stated in material", "material contradictory" | The corresponding branch runs after the user makes a selection |
| Retrieval input | Rebate policy, sales achievement table, reconciliation statement | Retrieval does not perform authorization judgment |
| Empty result handling | Check the downstream design against paper input [] | No claim is made that a fictional rule query must return [] |
| External operation | Receipt status synchronization requires a separate business interface | The node itself does not write orders or backfill documents |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Achievement rate threshold of 100% used as the comparison starting point for this exercise | This is an assumption for this exercise only, compared with the value stated in the material |
Three common errors
- Treating "rebate payable of RMB 180,000" as "rebate already received". The input is the reconciliation statement text, the comparison field is receipt status, and the material does not state that field.
- Treating retrieved material as an authorization credential. The input is the retrieval result, the comparison checks whether subject and period match, and retrieval does not judge permissions.
- Treating the branch the user selected as automatic execution. The input is the user's selection, the comparison checks whether later nodes are connected according to that branch, and the selection itself does not trigger an external write.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three hypothetical sample sentences and the draft sentence. Compare whether the field "receipt status" of the draft sentence appears in the material. When the material does not state it, output "not supported".
- Input the paper empty result []. Compare whether the downstream node handles it according to the empty result branch, and observe whether any call to an external write appears.
- Input the user selection "not stated in material". Compare whether the following branch stops at manual review, and observe whether automatic invoicing or automatic synchronization actions appear.