What the documents look like
Customer-service knowledge base maintenance covers FAQ entries, reply templates, product specification tables and escalation tickets. The work is preparatory question-and-answer material upkeep, and it does not directly approve refunds. Materials are revised weekly or monthly: specification tables change as new products are listed and delisted, while FAQ entries follow high-frequency question statistics and quality-sampling results. Within this material system, the contract and transaction material comparison task handles the contract texts and transaction records that appear during knowledge base maintenance, such as supplier cooperation agreements, procurement terms and transaction records inside after-sales tickets. Workflow routing connects the form input node and the user selection node into the comparison flow so that material collection, field checking and conclusion output form traceable steps.
Two features of this category shape the task. First, the comparison object is a document pair rather than a single record, so the workflow must hold both the source material and the drafted sentence until a reviewer can check them side by side. Second, the knowledge base is maintained by customer-service supervisors, knowledge base operators and product operators, so the routing step must make the stage of each item visible to people who are not contract specialists. Neither feature turns the workflow into an approval authority.
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 collected form information is passed to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user interaction node: it triggers the same interaction state, records the workflow state, and when the user makes a choice, the node judges that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and both trigger execution.
The routing constraint is that interaction nodes only collect and branch. They do not carry authorization judgement. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later flow. Semantic recall and relevance scores from the retrieval library do not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval results cannot be treated as an authorization basis. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the identifiers can only be checked and non-matching libraries excluded, with the actual observation recorded.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads "Party A: Xinghai Supply Chain Management Co., Ltd.; Party B: Yunfan Trading Co., Ltd.; contract subject matter: household air purifier filter, model KJ-300, quantity 2,000 units; contract effective date: March 1, 2025; quotation valid until April 30, 2025." The drafted sentence to be judged reads "This contract confirms that Party B completed delivery of 2,000 filters on March 1, 2025." The drafted sentence concerns a delivery fact. The source states only the contract effective date and the quotation validity period; it states no delivery date and no delivered quantity. Comparison requires the same party, the same period and the same field. Content not stated remains unsupported, and the evidence gap is preserved.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical exercise starting point | Checking method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Set material type, contract number and material date as three required fields | After submission, check whether the fields are passed to later nodes |
| User selection node | Set two branches, "materials complete" and "materials missing" | Verify each branch connection and execution path |
| Output handover | Pass the fields collected by the form to the comparison node | Compare output against input fields item by item |
| Retrieval scope | Limit to the knowledge base maintenance library | Check the library identifier and the vector model identifier |
| Empty-result handover | Check the downstream design with the paper input [] | Observe whether the downstream node handles empty input as designed |
| External operation split | Order writes and document backfill connect to a separate business interface | Check interface calls and status synchronization records |
The hypothetical exercise starting point describes where configuration sits and is not an official default value. The required fields material type, contract number and material date are chosen because comparison needs the same party, the same period and the same field, and any missing field prevents the check from completing. The retrieval scope is limited to the knowledge base maintenance library because the materials needed for contract and transaction comparison must sit inside a target retrieval scope the operator has access to; when they are absent, the gap is recorded.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result as an authorization basis. Input: the contract fragment returned by retrieval. Comparison object: the authorization boundary. Observable result: whether the document backfill action is triggered when no explicit authorization record exists. Retrieval is information acquisition; authorization needs a separate judgement.
- Writing a pending stage as already effective. Input: the source material and the drafted sentence in the hypothetical sample. Comparison object: the delivery date field and the delivered quantity field. Observable result: whether the drafted sentence adds facts the source does not state. Content not stated remains unsupported.
- Associating libraries across different vector models. Input: the identifiers of two libraries and their vector model identifiers. Comparison object: whether the model identifiers match. Observable result: whether the association operation is performed when the model identifiers differ. Libraries on different models cannot be associated together; the identifiers can only be checked and non-matching libraries excluded.
How to verify the setup
- Form input node verification. Input: the source material and the drafted sentence from the hypothetical sample; fill in material type, contract number and material date at the form input node and submit. Comparison object: whether the submitted fields match the fields received by later nodes. Observable result: whether later nodes receive the complete set of fields. If fields are missing, check the required-field settings and the field mapping.
- User selection node branch verification. Input: the source material from the hypothetical sample; at the user selection node choose the "materials missing" branch. Comparison object: the branch connection and the execution path. Observable result: whether the workflow executes the branch corresponding to "materials missing." Verify both branch connections one by one and confirm that branch execution matches the user's choice.
- Empty-result handover verification. Input: the paper input []. Observe whether the downstream node handles it as empty input. Comparison object: the empty-result handling logic in the downstream node design. Observable result: whether the downstream node remains in a pending-verification state under empty input. Retrieval checks record observations and failure branches, and do not guarantee a first hit, full recall, or that an unrelated query returns empty.