What the documents look like
Category access is decided before a listing is published or a store is onboarded. The evidence is the operating entity and the chain of authorization, carried in a business license, a trademark registration certificate, a brand authorization chain, and an industry license. These materials arrive from platform recruitment pages, the national enterprise credit information publicity system, trademark office data, and license systems. They are refreshed irregularly and collected again at each onboarding.
The comparison task for contracts and transaction materials is to line up the subject, the object, and the valid scope inside the authorization chain against the category that is about to be listed. Materials enter the workflow as images or files. The Form Input node collects required information and passes it to later nodes after submission. The User Selection node executes its "yes" branch once the user makes a choice. Workflow routing therefore has to answer three things: how the source text enters the comparison step, how the comparison conclusion is passed downstream, and which actions require a separate business interface.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node and the User Selection node are both user-interaction nodes. When either is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded; execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The dialog box is hidden during that state. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and they trigger execution. The interaction state and the hidden dialog box are existing node behavior. No separate global state-recording switch is defined, and none should be assumed.
Information collected from materials must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and each comparison item must be checked against its input. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorization or execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. An onboarding application submits a brand authorization chain whose source text reads: "Authorizing party A, authorized party B, authorized object is Class 25 apparel goods, authorization valid from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025." A separate business license source text reads: "Subject B, unified social credit code sample number, business scope includes apparel sales." The draft sentence to be judged is: "B may sell Class 25 apparel goods on the platform during 2025." The comparison must use the same subject, the same period, and the same field: the authorized object against the category to be listed, the authorization period against the intended sales period, and the authorized party against the business license subject. Business scope and authorized object are different fields and cannot substitute for each other.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Set required fields to collect authorization chain and business license information | Collects authorizing party, authorized party, object, and period from the sample |
| User Selection node | Set the choice options and the connection to the "yes" branch | Selects continue or return for correction based on the draft sentence judgment |
| Interaction state check | Entering the interaction state and recording workflow state after triggering | Sample materials wait for user confirmation before execution continues |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information explicitly to later judgment nodes | Passes the sample fields to the comparison step for item-by-item checking |
| External operation split | Writing, backfill, and synchronization connect to a separate business interface | The sample judgment does not automatically produce onboarding or publishing actions |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Authorization period comparison uses January 1, 2025 as the starting point | Compared with the intended sales period to judge coverage |
The "hypothetical trial starting point" in the table is a comparison baseline set for this paper exercise. That date was chosen because the sample authorization period begins on it, and the comparison object is the intended sales period. It is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result as authorization execution. The input is the sample authorization chain source text. When a retrieved authorization record is taken as proof that B already holds authorization, the comparison objects should be the four fields of authorizing party, authorized party, object, and period. The observable result is that the condition is met only when the fields agree. Retrieval itself does not produce authorization.
- Merging business scope and authorized object into one field. The input is the sample business license source text. The comparison objects are business scope and authorized object. The observable result is that the two belong to different fields and cannot substitute for each other. Merging them produces an incorrect judgment.
- Treating a pending-review state as a completed termination or an approval. The input is the sample draft sentence. The comparison objects are the authorization period and the intended sales period. The observable result is that the condition is met only when the period is covered. A pending state does not demonstrate that operating permission is absent, and it does not constitute approval.
How to verify the setup
- Using the sample authorization chain source text and the draft sentence, enter the four fields collected by the Form Input node. Compare the authorized object against the category to be listed, the authorization period against the intended sales period, and the authorized party against the business license subject. The observable result is that the draft sentence is supported when all three agree, and any missing item is recorded as pending verification.
- Using the sample business license source text, enter the business scope field. Compare it against the authorized object field. The observable result is that the two fields are recorded separately and are not merged into one basis for judgment. When either is missing, the evidence gap remains.
- Using an explicit paper input of an empty result, check the downstream node design. The observable result is that the empty result is handled as a non-match and the gap is recorded. Do not claim that a fictional-rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty result. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first, exclude those that do not conform, and record the actual observation rather than running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.