What the documents look like
Returned-goods inspections at the warehouse handle reverse parcels and item grades. This work differs from in-warehouse picking and packing for new outbound orders. The main data sources are the WMS returns module, platform after-sales records, carrier return shipments, and the inspection bench. The routine documents are the return inbound receipt, inspection photos, the grade determination sheet, and the resale listing sheet. Records update per item and per day. Copy drafting therefore works against item-level status records rather than batch orders.
This page covers only interactive forms inside product and marketing copy drafting. Whether a proposed promotional sentence is supported by the return receipt and inspection conclusion belongs here. Enterprise identity verification and report analysis belong to other tasks.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
In FastGPT v4.17.2, the form input node is a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits until the user completes the interaction. After the user submits the required information, the node collects the filled values and passes them to later nodes. The node does not include business database functions. The user selection node is also a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits. When the user makes a selection, the node evaluates that selection and runs the corresponding branch.
Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations are implemented in external systems or later nodes as needed. The interactive state, the recording of workflow state, and the hiding of the dialog box follow the documented behavior of these nodes. No control switch, submission count, automatic judgment, or snapshot guarantee is documented for them.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample (fictional, not a real record): the source text to check against reads — "Return inbound receipt R-2024-0512, item is a folding chair, returned quantity 2 units, inspection conclusion is minor surface scratches with intact structure, grade determined as Grade B resalable, inspection date 12 May 2024." The draft sentence to be judged reads — "This folding chair is a brand-new unused item and supports no-reason returns." The check requirement: whether the subject, status, and scope in the draft sentence match the source text.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Use on this page | Basis or check method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect the draft sentence to be checked and the corresponding return inbound receipt number | Official document: after submission, values pass to later nodes |
| User selection node | Choose the "supported" or "not supported" branch by check conclusion | Official document: the node runs a branch based on the user's selection |
| Interactive state | Wait for filling or selection to complete before continuing | Official document: state is recorded and the workflow waits |
| Required-information check | Check whether receipt number, item, grade, and date are complete | Implementation check item: list missing fields and test completion behavior |
| Downstream division of labor | Field validation, approval, and write-back are implemented by external systems | Official document: the node does not include business database functions |
Hypothetical starting point for this exercise: set "grade determined as Grade B resalable" as the highest status description the draft sentence is allowed to cite. This starting point is chosen to allow word-by-word comparison with the source text. The comparison object is the status wording in the draft sentence.
Three common errors
- Writing "brand-new unused" where the source says "Grade B resalable." Input is the source text above and the draft sentence. The comparison object is the status field. The observable result is that the two status wordings do not match.
- Treating the form input node as a business database and expecting an automatic write-back to the WMS after submission. Input is the submission action. The comparison object is the node documentation. The observable result is that the node only passes information, and write-back requires external implementation.
- Using the user selection node in place of a personnel directory or a business data selector. Input is the selection action. The comparison object is the node documentation. The observable result is that the node only evaluates a branch and does not provide business data.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the status wordings. If "brand-new unused" and "Grade B resalable" appear together, the draft sentence is judged not supported.
- Input a receipt that lacks a grade determination. Compare against the required-information list. If the form allows submission and a later node receives an empty grade, record this as a missing field that was not intercepted.
- Input an explicit paper-form empty result []. Check the downstream branch design and observe whether downstream handles the empty value. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
All of the above is a paper check. No deployment or live test has been performed.