What the documents look like
Dealer ordering events serve offline dealer reservations and do not directly manage platform storefronts. Contract and transaction material comparison draws on the ordering event system, historical sales, dealer inventory and financial credit data. Everyday documents include the ordering handbook, the ordering contract, the sample list and the credit approval record. The supplied brief gives quarterly and annual update frequencies; this page does not infer batch synchronization or real-time triggering from that.
The materials differ in subject, object and status. An ordering contract records the signing relationship between dealer and brand side. A credit approval record states an amount and an approval stage. A sample list names categories and quantities. Comparison must separate three facts: signing, cooperation reached, and contract effectiveness. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period. The form input node collects required information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node executes the corresponding branch after a user choice. Both enter an interaction state and record workflow state.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When an interaction node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the dialog box hides, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The form input node collects required information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The user selection node judges the selection and executes the "yes" branch. Retrieval results and form-collected values do not constitute authorization. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process.
Semantic recall and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching items excluded, without running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall. Empty-result handling can be checked against an explicit paper input of [] for downstream design. Optional paths listed in an overall document flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to settings.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text for checking is "Party A: a certain East China brand channel department; Party B: regional dealer A; object: 2025 autumn ordering contract; status: Party B has submitted order quantities, credit approval is at the pending-review stage; valid range: 1 September 2025 to 30 September 2025." The draft sentence to be judged is "Party B's credit has been approved, the contract has taken effect, and shipment can be arranged." This sentence involves two unsupported facts: pending review and effectiveness.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Hypothetical trial starting point and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented | Set required fields to collect dealer and contract object information; after submission, pass to later comparison nodes |
| User selection node | Documented | Set the "yes" branch to confirm whether material enters manual review; verify branch connections one by one |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | After triggering, check that the conversation enters the interaction state, the dialog box hides, and execution continues after completion |
| Output handoff check | Implementation check | Compare collected information against the input and output of later retrieval and judgment nodes, item by item |
| External operation separation | Implementation check | Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface and are not merged into retrieval nodes |
| Retrieval scope check | Implementation check | Check whether the target retrieval scope contains this contract and credit material; when missing, record the evidence gap |
This hypothetical trial starting point selects the "pending-review stage" as the comparison baseline because that status appears explicitly in the sample source text. The comparison method is to check the draft sentence's "has been approved" against the source text's "pending review," field by field. This starting point is a hypothetical setting, not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as approved. The sample source text states that credit approval is at the pending-review stage, while the draft sentence says "credit has been approved." Both share the same subject, period and field, and their values are mutually exclusive, which constitutes a contradiction. If the source text does not state an approval result, the claim is unsupported.
- Treating signing as contract effectiveness. The sample source text only states that Party B has submitted order quantities; it does not state signing or effectiveness clauses. The draft sentence says "the contract has taken effect," which supplies an authorization fact. Signing, cooperation reached and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts.
- Treating retrieval results as authorized execution. The form input node collects information and passes it on. A retrieval hit on contract material does not mean shipment is permitted. Order writing and external synchronization require a separate business interface; retrieval does not carry an authorization function.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence. Compare the two field values "pending review" and "has been approved," and observe whether the system identifies them as a mutually exclusive contradiction in the same field. The expected observation is a contradiction flag with the source status retained. If the source text does not state an approval result, the expected observation is an unsupported flag.
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence "the contract has taken effect." Compare whether the source text states a signing or effectiveness clause, and observe whether the system identifies a supplied fact. The expected observation is an unsupported flag with the evidence gap recorded. No claim is made that this was actually tested.
- Input the paper empty result [] together with the downstream node design. Compare whether the downstream handles the empty input as designed, and observe whether a path appears that treats the empty result as authorized execution. The expected observation is that the downstream remains in a to-be-verified state. No claim is made that a fabricated rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
All of the above are paper checks. No deployment or business action was actually performed.