What the documents look like
Complaints and official replies are directed at platforms or regulatory bodies, so the materials carry formal evidence and remediation language rather than routine after-sales repair notes. The main sources named in the brief are the 12315 platform, platform complaint centers, customer service chat, and the order system. The documents handled day to day are complaint tickets, regulatory inquiry letters, order evidence, and remediation reports. These arrive on an irregular, per-case basis.
For contract and transaction material comparison, the working task is to align each claim in a ticket or inquiry letter against order evidence and chat records, item by item, and to confirm whether the subject, time, amount, and status agree. Workflow routing has to connect material collection, comparison judgment, and remediation reply into a path that can be reviewed afterwards.
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 completes the interaction the workflow continues downward. The node collects the required form information the user fills in and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user interaction node with the same interaction-state behavior; when the user makes a choice, the node judges that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch.
Information collected this way must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and inputs and outputs compared item by item. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process; the nodes themselves do not perform those actions. Retrieval results do not constitute authorization, and form values do not constitute approval. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; check the identifier first and exclude those that do not match.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below is built around a hypothetical drill sample. Hypothetical drill sample: a shop ticket states "Order A was signed for on March 1, and the goods were damaged." The customer service chat record states "the customer has provided photos." The order evidence shows "Order A status is signed for." The proposed draft sentence is "Order A was signed for and the goods were damaged; this shop agrees to a full refund." This draft sentence must be checked item by item against the materials.
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect ticket number, order number, claim type, evidence list | Collects Order A and the damage claim in the sample |
| User selection node | Set a "materials complete / materials missing" branch | Judges whether the photos and the signed-for record are complete |
| Output handoff | Pass form values to the comparison node and check subject, time, status item by item | Compares the signed-for status of Order A with the draft sentence |
| Retrieval scope | Limit to order and chat libraries with access rights | Confirms the photo record and the signed-for record can be found |
| External action split | Refunds and ticket backfill connect to a separate business interface | The refund intent in the draft sentence is not executed by the node |
| Manual check | Record gaps for missing evidence; do not invent clauses | Whether the photos correspond to Order A remains to be verified |
Three common errors
- Treating a collected form value as an approval result. In the sample the draft sentence says "agrees to a full refund," while the form only collected the claim and evidence. A refund requires a separate business interface, and the node output cannot be treated as execution.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization or entity isolation. Finding the Order A record only shows that the record is within the accessible scope; it does not show that the current operator has the right to refund or to modify the ticket.
- Treating the interaction-state record as a global switch. Recording state is behavior of the interaction node. No separate global state-recording switch is set, and the node does not guarantee submission counts or snapshots.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, and compare "signed for" in the draft sentence with "signed for" in the order evidence to see whether they share the same subject, the same period, and the same field. If the order evidence reads "signed for" and the draft sentence reads "signed for," that field agrees. If the order evidence reads "awaiting signature," the draft sentence is not supported.
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, and compare "the goods were damaged" with "the customer has provided photos" in the chat record. Whether the photos correspond to damage to the goods in Order A is not stated in the materials; record this as pending verification and do not judge it as a contradiction.
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, and compare "agrees to a full refund" with the authorization status. The materials do not state refund approval or authorization clauses; record this as an evidence gap, do not invent authorization, and do not claim the refund was executed.