What the documents look like
General trade export declaration work centers on four documents: the export declaration form, the commercial invoice, the packing list, and the contract. Data originates from China International Trade Single Window, the customs code library, freight forwarder bills of lading, and the enterprise ERP. The update frequency is per shipment. Compared with general trade import declaration, export declaration also affects the matching of export tax rebate vouchers, so the result of comparing the contract against transaction materials feeds into the rebate stage. The consequences of error are document return and inspection, declaration discrepancies, and blocked tax rebates. This page addresses only workflow routing for contract and transaction material comparison. It does not construct unsupported business functions.
A practical detail shapes the routing step: the same shipment produces a declaration form, an invoice, a packing list, and a contract that must agree on parties, goods, quantity, unit price, total price, and shipment period. A second detail is that these materials arrive from different sources at different times, so the comparison step depends on which materials are present when the workflow runs. A third detail is that the outcome of this comparison is not the end of the process; it determines whether the shipment proceeds to declaration or returns for correction.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the interaction the workflow continues. The node collects required information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a selection, the node evaluates that selection and executes the corresponding "yes" branch.
The interaction state record is behavior of the interaction nodes. No separate global state-recording switch is documented, and none should be assumed. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require separate business interfaces or downstream processes. Retrieval is not authorization. A collected form value is not business verification or approval. A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material reads, "Seller Company A and Buyer Company B signed export contract No. X-2025-03 on March 10, 2025. The goods are stainless steel fasteners, quantity 1,000 pieces, unit price USD 2.50, total price USD 2,500, shipment period April 2025." The draft sentence to be assessed is, "The goods under this contract were fully shipped on April 20, 2025." This draft sentence concerns a shipment fact. The source states only the shipment period and does not state an actual shipment date. The sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this function and primary task, tied to the hypothetical drill sample. The values are hypothetical starting points for this page, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point on this page | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Enabled, with fields for contract number, invoice number, and packing list number | The node collects required information and passes it to subsequent nodes; compare each output against its input |
| User Selection node | Enabled, with branches "materials complete" and "materials missing" | After the user selects, the corresponding yes branch executes; verify each branch connection one by one |
| Interaction state check | Enters interaction state after triggering | State recording is behavior of the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch is documented |
| Output handoff check | Passes collected information to a subsequent retrieval or judgment node | Compare each output against its input and confirm field mapping |
| External action division | Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization connect to separate interfaces | The form does not perform these business actions; a downstream process must implement them |
| Retrieval scope check | Verify identifiers and exclude non-matching records | Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; verify identifiers only |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as business verification or approval. Input is the submitted form value from the hypothetical sample; the comparison object is the contract source text; the observable result is that the form value was passed but no approval state was produced. Missing evidence remains missing.
- Treating the selected yes branch of User Selection as an automatic judgment. Input is the selection result; the comparison object is the branch connection; the observable result is that only the selected branch executed and the other branch did not.
- Treating a retrieval result as authorization or entity isolation. Input is a similarity score; the comparison object is the permission identifier; the observable result is that the score does not exclude unauthorized records. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; verify identifiers and exclude non-matching records.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source material and the draft sentence. Compare the draft sentence "was fully shipped on April 20, 2025" against the source "shipment period April 2025." The observable result is that the source does not state an actual shipment date, so the sentence is unsupported rather than contradictory.
- Input the hypothetical sample contract number X-2025-03. Compare the form output against the subsequent node input. The observable result is that the contract number field is readable in the subsequent node and no field loss occurred.
- Input an empty result []. Compare the downstream design. The observable result is that the downstream handles it according to the empty-result branch. Do not claim that retrieval under a fictional rule necessarily returns []. A pending review does not prove absence of operating permission; signing, cooperation reached, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts; a quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period.
A verification check for retrieval should state the observation and the failure branch. It should not guarantee a first-hit result, full recall, or that an irrelevant query is necessarily empty. When the target retrieval scope or a clear manual input holds the material needed for verification, record the gap when it is missing.