What the documents look like
Dealer rebate calculation happens after sales close, and its subject matter is policy wording and financial outcome. The working data comes from ERP sales records, dealer remittances, contract ledgers and the finance system. Everyday documents include rebate policies, sales achievement tables, reconciliation statements and red-letter invoices. The most time-consuming steps are checking the achievement basis, deducting returned goods amounts and offsetting by invoice. For copy drafting, these facts mean a proposed promotional sentence has to sit beside the policy clause, the achievement figure and the reconciliation status in one reviewable set of materials. The form input node collects what a person fills in and passes it to later nodes; the interactive state is triggered by the node, records the workflow state and waits for completion.
A monthly or quarterly update rhythm does not change what this page covers. The drafting task is to check whether a specific proposed sentence is supported by the supplied materials.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The form input node collects information a person fills in and passes it to later nodes after submission. It does not carry a business database function of its own. The user selection node runs a branch according to what the user chooses; it is not a personnel directory and not a business data selector. When a node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the interaction completes. Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations are implemented as needed in external systems or later nodes. The judgement object for copy drafting is whether a specific promotional sentence is supported by the materials; it does not involve enterprise identity certification or report analysis.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand finance team and a dealer finance team hand over copy drafting for the 2025 third-quarter rebate calculation. The three source sentences supplied for checking read: "The quarterly sales achievement table shows that Dealer A completed a purchase amount of RMB 1.2 million from July to September 2025. Article 3 of the rebate policy provides that a quarterly purchase amount reaching RMB 1 million may be calculated as a 2% rebate. The reconciliation statement records that as of 15 October 2025 this rebate had not yet been offset by invoice." The proposed sentence to be judged reads: "Dealer A has received the 2% rebate for this quarter and completed invoicing." The proposed sentence lacks the completed invoicing state; the materials record only that invoicing offset has not yet occurred.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check on this page | Link to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collects filled information and passes it to later nodes after submission | Collects the proposed sentence and the source sentences |
| Required-field check | Lists the information this task cannot omit, then tests the missing case and the completed case | Subject, period, field, state |
| User selection node | Runs a branch according to the user's choice | Separates "invoiced" from "not invoiced" |
| Interactive state | Records workflow state after triggering and waits | Waits for the form to be completed before judging |
| Downstream division of work | Field validation, approval and write-back are implemented externally as needed | Invoicing state needs a separate system connection |
Hypothetical starting point for this exercise: compare "has received" in the proposed sentence with "may be calculated as 2%" in the materials. The reason for choosing this starting point is that the materials state a calculation condition and do not state that the rebate was actually paid out. This starting point is a paper checking setup and is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating "may be calculated as a 2% rebate" as "has received the rebate". The input is the source sentence and the proposed sentence; the comparison is between a calculation condition and a payment state; the observable result is that these are different fields.
- Treating "has not yet been offset by invoice" as "has completed invoicing". The input is the reconciliation statement state; the comparison is between not invoiced and invoiced; the observable result is that these two states are mutually exclusive.
- Treating the user selection node as a business data selector. The input is the node branch; the comparison is between a selection action and a database record; the observable result is that the node performs neither authorization nor writing.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample's source sentences and the proposed sentence, then compare "may be calculated as 2%" with "has received the 2% rebate". The support condition is met only when the materials state that the rebate was paid out; the current materials do not state this, so the judgement is not supported.
- Input the reconciliation statement's "has not yet been offset by invoice" and the proposed sentence's "completed invoicing", then compare the two mutually exclusive values of not invoiced and invoiced. The condition is met only when an invoiced record appears for the same subject, the same period and the same field; the current record is not invoiced, so the proposed sentence does not hold.
- Input an empty-result downstream scenario and check the downstream design against the paper input []. Observe whether later nodes handle an empty input as designed; do not claim that a fabricated rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Different vector models cannot be associated together; check the identifiers first, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual observation.