What the documents look like
Douyin storefront shelf operations centre on product cards and the store experience score. The materials handled day to day include product qualification pages, experience score breakdowns, shipping violation appeals, and store announcements. These materials update daily or per order, so contract and transaction material comparison works across subject, object, status, and validity-scope information spread over several documents. The workflow routing task is to collect the source text, the draft sentence or handover request awaiting a decision, and pass them through nodes in order so that a handover shows which materials, operations, and requests sit at which authorisation state. The comparison itself does not write orders, backfill documents, or synchronise external status.
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. It collects required information and passes what the user submitted to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Branch connections need to be verified one by one. The interaction-state record is behaviour of the interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is documented. Collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes, and outputs are compared against inputs item by item. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorisation to execute.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text reads "Store A submitted a qualification page for product X on 1 March 2025, with qualification validity through 31 December 2025; on the same day Store A submitted a shipping violation appeal, and the appeal status is pending review." The draft sentence awaiting a decision reads "Store A's product X qualification is effective and the appeal has been approved." This sentence contains subject, object, status, and validity scope, but the appeal status is pending review, so neither qualification effectiveness nor appeal approval is supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check relevant to this page | Correspondence with the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Enters interaction state on trigger, collects required information, passes it to later nodes | Collects source text and draft sentence |
| User Selection node | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user chooses; verify branch connections one by one | Selects comparison object and field |
| Interaction-state check | The record is interaction-node behaviour; no separate global switch | Checks the state record after submission |
| Output hand-off check | Explicitly passes collected information to later retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes | Compares output fields against input fields |
| External action division | Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronisation attach to a separate business interface or later process | Appeal status and qualification effectiveness are not executed by these nodes |
| Retrieval observation item | Records the actual retrieval result; no guarantee of first-hit or full recall | Checks whether the source text was retrieved |
Hypothetical trial starting point for this page: compare the draft sentence against the source text by same subject, same period, and same field. This starting point is chosen because the sample has a clear subject and object, and the fields are qualification validity and appeal status. The comparison method is a field-by-field check of whether values are mutually exclusive or unstated.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review appeal status as approved. Input is the draft sentence "the appeal has been approved"; comparison is against the source text "the appeal status is pending review"; the observable result is that the status field does not state approval, so the claim is unsupported.
- Treating qualification validity as qualification effectiveness. Input is the draft sentence "the qualification is effective"; comparison is against the source text "qualification validity through 31 December 2025"; the observable result is that a validity period does not state effectiveness, so an evidence gap remains.
- Treating a retrieval result as authorised execution. Input is that the source text was retrieved; comparison is against the authorisation boundary; the observable result is that retrieval does not constitute authorisation, and order writing and external synchronisation require a separate business interface.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text and draft sentence, compare same subject, same period, and same field values, and observe whether the draft sentence is mutually exclusive with or unstated by the source text. If the appeal status is pending review while the draft sentence says approved, the condition is not satisfied.
- Input the User Selection node branch, compare the selection result against the "yes" branch connection, and observe whether the branch executes according to the selection. Verify connections one by one; if a branch does not correspond to the selection, the condition is not satisfied.
- Input an empty-result hand-off, using the explicit paper input [] to check the downstream design, and observe whether downstream handles the empty result. No claim is made that a fictional rule retrieval must return []; if downstream does not handle the empty result, the condition is not satisfied.