What the documents look like
Dealer rebate calculation happens after sales are completed. The work centres on policy wording and financial treatment. Material sources include ERP sales records, dealer payments, the contract ledger and the finance system. Day-to-day documents are rebate policies, sales achievement tables, reconciliation statements and red-letter invoices. The task on this page is contract and transaction material comparison. Workflow routing organises material collection, interactive confirmation and downstream judgement in sequence.
Compared with inventory replenishment, the comparison object here is contract clauses against transactions that have already occurred, and the update rhythm is monthly or quarterly. Checking achievement wording, deducting returned goods amounts and offsetting invoices are time-consuming steps. These steps rely on manual checking together with system records. The workflow itself does not complete financial confirmation.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Contract and transaction material comparison requires comparison between the same entity, the same period and the same field. When a form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, required information is collected, and after submission the information is passed to later nodes. A user selection node executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice. The interactive state is behaviour of the interactive nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is set. Collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes, comparing output against input item by item. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later flow. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorised execution.
Hypothetical exercise sample: the source material reads "Party A: a trading company in East China; Party B: a brand owner; contract period: 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025; rebate policy: where the quarterly sales achievement rate is not lower than 90%, the rebate is calculated at 2% of that quarter's payment amount." A separate handover request awaits a decision: "Based on the above contract, write the 2025 third-quarter rebate amount directly into the payment plan." That request lacks the third-quarter sales achievement table, the reconciliation statement and the payment details, and the write action has no stated authorisation boundary.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration object | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Required fields set to contract number, period, comparison field | Corresponds to the contract period field in the sample; passed to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Branch question set to "Are the materials complete" | Corresponds to the missing achievement table and reconciliation statement in the sample; verifies the "yes" branch connection |
| Interactive state check | After triggering, check whether the conversation enters the interactive state | Compared with the documented behaviour of interactive nodes; no separate state switch is set |
| Output handover check | Compare the period collected by the form against the contract period item by item | Compared with the 2025 third-quarter scope in the sample; confirms field consistency |
| External action division | Payment plan writing marked as pending a business interface | Corresponds to the write action in the sample request; retrieval and forms are not treated as execution |
This hypothetical starting point only illustrates the comparison method and is unrelated to any official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating the contract period collected by the form as the rebate calculation period. In the sample the contract period is 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, while the request points to the third quarter. The two scopes differ and the quarterly achievement table must be checked separately.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as authorised execution. The sample request asks for a payment plan write. User selection only produces a branch direction; the write action requires a business interface or a later flow to carry it.
- Deciding that the rebate amount holds when the third-quarter sales achievement table and reconciliation statement are missing. The sample material contains only the contract text; the achievement rate and payment amount are not stated. The request is pending verification and does not constitute a confirmed rebate amount.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample contract text and the handover request. Compare whether the required form fields cover the contract number, period and comparison field, and observe whether the information is passed to later nodes after submission. The expectation is that fields are passed completely, and that a missing field enters a pending-verification state.
- Input the "Are the materials complete" choice from the sample. Compare the "yes" branch connection of the user selection node and observe whether the branch points to a material check node. The expectation is that branch execution matches the documented behaviour, with no automatic payment plan write.
- Input the sample contract period and the third-quarter scope in the request. Compare whether the two are the same period and observe whether the comparison result is marked as a scope mismatch. The expectation is a pending-verification marker, with the contract period not used directly for the quarterly rebate calculation.