What the documents look like
Export tax rebate filing happens after goods leave the country, and the work at this stage is matching tax vouchers rather than declaring cargo. The main data sources are the electronic tax bureau, the export tax rebate filing system, customs electronic information, and the financial ledger. The documents handled day to day include the export tax exemption and rebate filing form, the export customs declaration form, purchase invoices, and foreign exchange receipt vouchers. The people who do this work are foreign trade enterprise finance staff, tax accountants, and documentation clerks. Errors lead to delayed rebates, ineligibility for rebate, and tax risk. Contract and transaction material comparison sits before filing as a checking step, and workflow routing has to bring the materials to be compared into the flow and pass the comparison conclusion to later nodes. The comparison itself is a field-by-field reading of the same subject, the same period, and the same field; a value that is not stated, or evidence that only reaches a related stage, stays unsupported or pending verification.
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 fills in the required information and submits, the node collects the form information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, and when the user makes a choice, the node judges that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes only collect values and decide a branch. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization need a separate business interface or a later flow. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorized execution. During operational handover, materials sit in states such as pending review, submitted, or signed, and the actual state has to be recorded as it is. Pending review does not demonstrate that an operation permission is absent, and a pending request is not an approval.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a purchase invoice reads "Supplier: A Trading Co., Ltd.; Buyer: B Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Goods: cotton men's shirts; Quantity: 1,200 pieces; Invoice date: March 10, 2025." An export customs declaration form reads "Domestic consignor: B Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Commodity name: cotton men's shirts; Quantity: 1,200 pieces; Export date: March 18, 2025." A draft sentence to be judged reads "The goods name and quantity on the above purchase invoice and export customs declaration form are consistent, and the subject is B Import and Export Co., Ltd. in both, so the case can proceed to filing data generation." This sample is for paper checking only. The entities, objects, states, and date range are all fictional.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Applicable setting or check on this page | Notes and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Triggers into the interaction state and collects required information | After submission the information passes to later nodes; it does not carry approval |
| User selection node | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice | Verify branch connections one by one; it does not decide a business conclusion automatically |
| Interaction state check | Recording state is behavior of the interaction node | No separate global state-recording switch is set or claimed |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes | Compare output against input item by item |
| External operation division | Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization connect to a business interface | Forms do not perform writing or synchronization |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Draft sentence comparison uses goods name and quantity as fields | These two fields are chosen because the sample text states them explicitly, and they are compared with the same fields on the declaration form |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as completed authorization. Input is the draft sentence and the two source texts above. If the flow moves directly into filing data generation after the user submits the form, the comparison point is the submission action against the authorization state, and the observable result is that the flow does not distinguish pending review from approved. The check is to add an output handoff check after the form input node and confirm that the comparison conclusion is passed only as a record pending verification.
- Treating a retrieval hit as subject consistency. Input is "the subject is B Import and Export Co., Ltd. in both" in the draft sentence. The comparison point is the buyer field on the invoice against the domestic consignor field on the declaration form, and the observable result is that only equal values satisfy consistency. The check is to list subject, goods name, quantity, and date field by field, and record fields that are not stated as unsupported.
- Treating the user selection branch as a business conclusion. Input is the user choosing "yes" in the interaction state. The comparison point is that choice against the field values in the source texts, and the observable result is that the choice action itself does not change the field comparison result. The check is to place a manual verification action after the "yes" branch and keep the verification conclusion and the choice record separate.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the purchase invoice text, the export customs declaration form text, and the draft sentence above. Compare the goods name field "cotton men's shirts" and the quantity field "1,200 pieces"; the two materials take the same value in these fields, so that part of the draft sentence is supported. The subject field requires comparing the buyer against the domestic consignor, and only equal values satisfy the condition. Fields that are not stated remain unsupported.
- Verification two: input the request "can proceed to filing data generation" from the draft sentence. Compare that request against the downstream nodes actually present in the flow. If the flow configures only the form input node and the user selection node, the data generation action the request needs is unsupported, and this is recorded as an evidence gap rather than judged as executed.
- Verification three: input a paper empty-result handoff case, record the retrieval output as an explicit empty list, and compare how the downstream judgment node is designed to handle an empty list. The observable result is that the downstream produces no comparison conclusion and keeps the pending verification state. This empty list is a paper input, and no claim is made that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty result. Libraries under different vector models cannot be associated together; verify the identifier first and exclude those that do not match.