What the documents look like
Trade returns and claims handle reverse logistics and liability determination after export is complete, running in the opposite direction from ordinary export customs declaration. The main materials come from customer email, quality inspection reports, customs systems, and insurer claim systems. Everyday documents include the return agreement, the claim letter, the quality report, and the return customs declaration. Updates are irregular and occur per case, so the comparison target on this page is consistency among several materials inside one case, and the arrival time and order of materials are not fixed.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Contract and transaction material comparison requires placing the source material text and a proposed sentence or handover request inside one flow for checking. After the form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, collects required information, and passes that information to later nodes after submission. The user selection node executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice. The interaction state and the state record are behaviors of the interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is set. Collected information must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and the output and input are compared item by item. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later flow. Retrieval or form collection does not by itself constitute authorized execution, and a pending review does not demonstrate the absence of operating permission.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: source material one reads "Party A: A Export Company; Party B: B Overseas Buyer; object: return agreement for batch X-01; status: signed by both parties, signing date 10 March 2025." Source material two reads "Quality report: batch X-01, inspection date 5 March 2025, conclusion is that part of the goods does not conform to the agreed specification." The proposed sentence to be judged is "Both parties have reached a return agreement for batch X-01, and Party B agrees to bear the return freight." This proposed sentence concerns cost bearing, and the source materials do not state a cost-bearing clause, so it is unsupported content.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Purpose and checking method on this page |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Interaction node | Collects case number, material type, and fields to be compared; passes them to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Interaction node | Makes an adopt or return choice on the proposed sentence and executes the corresponding "yes" branch |
| Retrieval scope | Implementation check | Limited to case materials within access rights; no joint association across vector models |
| Output handover | Implementation check | Compares form output with the input of the later judgment node item by item |
| External operation division | Implementation check | Order writing, document backfill, and external synchronization connect to a separate business interface |
The hypothetical starting value for this exercise is three comparison materials per case. The reason for choosing it is that this sample contains two material types, an agreement and a quality report. The comparison object is the number of materials that actually arrive. Three is not described as an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating a proposed sentence collected through the form as a confirmed fact. The input is the proposed sentence above and the two source materials; the comparison is the cost-bearing field; the observable result is that the source materials do not state this field, so it should be recorded as unsupported.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as business approval. The input is the user selection record and the source materials; the comparison is whether an authorization clause exists; the observable result is that the selection action does not produce authorization effect.
- Treating a retrieval hit as a permission filter. The input is the retrieval result and the material access scope; the comparison is whether the two cover the same scope; the observable result is that relevance does not carry entity or permission isolation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the two source materials above and the proposed sentence; compare the cost-bearing wording in the proposed sentence with the fields stated in the source text. If the source text has no such field, output unsupported rather than a contradiction.
- Input the user selection record and the proposed sentence; compare the selection result with the authorization status in the source materials. If the source text has no authorization clause, keep the evidence gap and do not determine that approval has occurred.
- Input an empty result [] and the downstream judgment node design; compare whether the downstream side explicitly accepts empty input. If the downstream side does not define empty-input handling, record it as a design item still to be supplemented, and do not claim that a rule retrieval certainly returns [].
This page addresses only trade returns and claims, contract and transaction material comparison, and workflow routing. At operations handover, the authorization status of materials, actions, and requests must be clear, and retrieval or form submission cannot be treated as authorized execution.