What the documents look like
Livestream violation appeals respond to penalties that have already been issued, so the evidence chain is reviewed after the fact. In this category the working documents are the platform violation notice, the livestream recording, product qualification files, and the appeal statement. Sources include the platform violation center, livestream replays, customer service records, and the product qualification library. Updates are irregular and occur per violation rather than on a schedule. The most time-consuming steps are locating the violating segment, supplementing evidence, and drafting the appeal reasoning. The parties handing materials across one another are typically store compliance, livestream operations, and legal.
For the contract and transaction material comparison task, the relevant objects are the violation notice, the replay segment, the qualification file, and the draft appeal wording. These materials move through stages such as submitted, pending supplement, pending review, and effective. Each stage carries a different authorization meaning, and the workflow routing step must keep those meanings distinct.
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. The node collects required form information and passes it to subsequent 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 "yes" branch. Interaction state is recorded by the interaction node itself; no separate global state-recording switch is documented.
Collected values must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs must be compared item by item against inputs. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or downstream process. Retrieval and form submission do not constitute authorization to execute.
Hypothetical drill sample: A store receives a platform violation notice. The notice text states: "Session of March 12, 2025, product A displayed an efficacy claim at minute 47 of the livestream replay; penalty is a 7-day product ban." The draft sentence in the appeal statement submitted by store compliance reads: "The qualification file for product A referenced in that segment passed review on March 10, 2025, and the wording used in the livestream is consistent with the scope of the qualification." The pending request is: "Please compare the product A qualification file with the wording at minute 47 of the livestream replay and confirm whether the appeal can be submitted." In this sample, the qualification file's review date, the wording scope, and the violation time in the notice form the subject, object, and effective range needed for judgment.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Value and explanation for this sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Interaction node | Collects violation notice number, session date, product identifier, and replay timestamp |
| User Selection node | Interaction node | Branch options are "materials complete, can submit" and "materials need supplement" |
| Output handoff | Node connection | Form values pass to retrieval and judgment nodes for item-by-item comparison |
| Retrieval scope | Knowledge base | Limited to the product qualification library and livestream replay records; retrieval does not constitute authorization |
| External action | Interface node | Appeal submission and status synchronization require a separate business interface; the form does not perform writes |
| Interaction state check | Behavior check | Confirm the conversation enters and records the interaction state; no global state switch is set |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as an appeal already submitted. The Form Input node collects information and passes it to later nodes; the submission action itself does not trigger an external appeal interface. Check the mapping between form output fields and the input fields of the subsequent interface node, and observe whether an unconnected write path exists.
- Treating the User Selection choice "materials complete, can submit" as approval. The User Selection node executes the "yes" branch; the branch direction is determined by the choice, and approval status requires a separate business interface record. Check the branch connection against the actual approval record, and observe whether the selection result is misread as an approval conclusion.
- Treating a retrieval hit as verified material. Retrieval returns document fragments from the knowledge base; whether the qualification file covers the violation time and wording scope stated in the notice requires manual comparison. Check the subject, date, and fields of the retrieval output against the notice text, and observe whether consistency is decided from the hit alone.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the notice text and draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the review date "March 10, 2025" stated in the draft sentence with the actual review date in the qualification file, and observe whether the two match. If the qualification file does not state a review date, record this as unsupported rather than as a contradiction.
- Enter the pending request. Compare the product identifier in the request with the product identifier in the notice, and observe whether they share the same subject, the same period, and the same field. If the request does not include the original qualification file text, record the evidence gap and do not supply authorization or effective clauses.
- Check the connection from form output to subsequent nodes. Compare the fields collected by the form with the input fields of the judgment node, and observe whether any field is unmapped. If retrieval returns an empty result, use an explicit paper input of [] to check the downstream design, and do not claim that a fictional rule search necessarily returns [].
A pending request is not approval. An offered option is not execution. An unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Where a document field is not provided, it remains unknown.