What the documents look like
Marketplace promotion registration and price management runs on four recurring materials: the campaign registration form, the promotional price approval sheet, the inventory lock sheet and the campaign review sheet. The working data behind them is price, inventory and campaign rhythm. Sources named in the brief are the Tmall marketing backend, the JD campaign backend, ERP inventory and historical transaction prices. Update frequency is weekly or per campaign. Typical roles are platform campaign operations, brand sales planning and finance business partners.
This differs from product title compliance work. Promotion registration turns on price, inventory and campaign timing rather than on review of promotional wording. When these materials enter a contract and transaction material comparison task, they have to be organised by subject, object, period and field so that workflow routing can check them item by item.
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 execution continues after the user completes the interaction. Once the user fills the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node behaves the same way at trigger: the conversation enters the interaction state, state is recorded, and after the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. The interaction state is recorded by the interaction node itself. No separate global state recording switch is documented, and none should be assumed.
Output handoff matters. Collected information has to be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later process. A retrieval step or a form submission does not constitute authorised execution, and a pending review status does not demonstrate that operating permission is absent.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Material text: "Party A, XX Trading Co., Ltd., and Party B, XX Supply Chain Co., Ltd., signed the Promotional Price Approval Sheet on 1 March 2025, agreeing that a certain product would carry a campaign price of 99 yuan during 8 March to 10 March 2025; the approval status is approved." Draft sentence to be judged: "The two parties have reached a long-term supply price agreement for this product." The draft sentence widens a single-campaign price into a long-term supply price and states no supply term. Comparison must use the same subject, the same period and the same field. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply term.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Required form input fields | Subject name, object, period, field | After submission, compare each item against later node input |
| User selection branch | Yes branch connected to price comparison | Verify branch connections one by one |
| Output handoff | Collected information passed to the judgement node | Compare output against input for consistency |
| Retrieval scope | Target materials the requester has access to | Record an evidence gap when material is missing |
| External operations | Order writing connected through a separate interface | Do not treat form submission as executed |
The starting point above is chosen for this paper exercise so that the sample text supplies every field the comparison needs. It is not an official default. Each row is checked by comparing the configured value against the sample material or against the downstream node input.
Three common errors
- Treating a single-campaign price as a long-term supply price. Check: take the material text and the draft sentence as input, compare subject, object, period and field. The draft sentence fails the condition once it extends beyond the campaign period.
- Treating a pending review status as absence of operating permission. Check: take the approval status field as input, compare whether an authorisation conclusion is stated. When it is not stated, record the item as pending verification.
- Treating form submission as an order already written. Check: take the submission record and the downstream interface record as input, compare whether an actual write exists. With no record, the state remains unknown.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample material text and the draft sentence. Compare subject, period and field. The condition is met only when the draft sentence agrees with the source text on those three items; a draft that goes beyond the stated range does not pass.
- Input the approval status field. Compare whether an authorisation conclusion is stated. When it is not stated, output pending verification. Do not output a negative or conflicting conclusion.
- Input an empty result, written as [], and check the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream keeps a gap record. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
These checks state expected behaviour on paper. They do not report a completed test, an approval, a deployment or any business action. Where the material does not state a fact, the gap stays open.