What the documents look like
Cross-border return refurbishment and resale handles reverse logistics and item condition rather than inbound replenishment. The operating records come from overseas warehouse WMS, TikTok return centers, Amazon return reports and item quality-inspection photos. The four document types that matter for this task are the return quality-inspection sheet, the refurbishment record, the scrap sheet and the resale listing list. The quality-inspection sheet carries the return grade decision, the refurbishment record carries packaging and handling actions, the scrap sheet carries the disposition of items that cannot be resold, and the resale listing list carries the objects selected for resale. Each document type has its own subject, batch and status fields, and this task compares those fields across documents.
A return quality-inspection sheet states a batch identifier, the item, an inspection conclusion and an inspection date. A refurbishment record states a batch identifier, the refurbishment action and a completion date. A scrap sheet states a batch identifier and a scrap quantity. A resale listing list states the batch identifier and the listing object. Comparison means checking whether the batch, item, conclusion, refurbishment date and scrap quantity fields correspond across the documents that share the same batch.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Workflow routing here means arranging collection, comparison and manual review into ordered steps. 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 required fields and submits, the collected values are passed 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 corresponding branch.
The constraint is that these nodes collect values the user fills in and route on the user's choice. They do not perform business approval, database writes or external synchronization. A comparison conclusion requires a manual review action. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization need a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval is used to locate relevant materials, and a similarity score does not act as a permission filter or a subject-isolation mechanism. Interaction waiting, state recording and hiding the dialog follow the node documentation; no separate global state switch is assumed.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the return quality-inspection sheet reads "Batch B-0417, item is a folding table, inspection conclusion is refurbishable, inspection date 17 April 2025." The refurbishment record reads "Batch B-0417, refurbishment action is outer packaging replacement, completion date 19 April 2025." The scrap sheet reads "Batch B-0417, scrap quantity 0 units." A draft handover request reads "Based on the three materials above, add batch B-0417 to the resale listing list." The point to be judged is whether the refurbishable conclusion, the completed refurbishment and the zero scrap quantity, being consistent on the same batch and the same fields, support listing, and whether that request has been authorized for execution.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting on this page | Basis or check method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect batch number, inspection conclusion, refurbishment completion date, scrap quantity | Node documentation: submitted values pass to subsequent nodes |
| User selection node | Branches are "materials consistent, submit for manual review" and "materials inconsistent, return for supplement" | Node documentation: the corresponding branch executes after the user chooses |
| Material retrieval scope | Limited to return quality-inspection sheet, refurbishment record, scrap sheet, resale listing list | Task scope on this page, not a global setting |
| Comparison fields | Batch number, item, inspection conclusion, refurbishment date, scrap quantity | Fields shared by the three materials in the hypothetical sample |
| Authorization boundary check | The draft request is marked pending review and does not enter execution | A pending review does not show that operating permission has been granted |
| Hypothetical starting value | Scrap quantity starting value is set to 0 units because the sample scrap sheet states 0 units | Compared with the scrap sheet text, not an official default value |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as authorized execution. Observable error: after the user submits the comparison form for batch B-0417, resale listing is triggered directly. Check: input the draft request from the hypothetical sample, compare whether the request status field is pending review, and observe that the result stays at the interaction node output and does not enter a listing action.
- Treating retrieval similarity as subject filtering. Observable error: materials from other batches are retrieved and included in the comparison. Check: input a retrieval query for batch B-0417, compare the batch-number field of each returned material, and observe that each batch number is checked individually and non-matching items are excluded without relying on a score threshold.
- Treating a pending-review status as approved. Observable error: a draft request marked pending review is read as consent to list. Check: input the draft request text, compare its status word with "approved," and observe that the result is recorded as pending verification and no execution conclusion is generated.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the three material texts and the draft request from the hypothetical sample, compare whether the batch number, inspection conclusion, refurbishment completion date and scrap quantity fields are consistent for the same batch, and observe that when all four fields correspond and the scrap quantity is 0 units, the comparison passes and moves to the manual review branch; when any field is missing, record the gap rather than judging it as a contradiction.
- Verification two: input a retrieval query whose batch number is written as B-0418, compare the batch number of returned materials with the queried batch number, and observe that non-matching batches are excluded and that when there is no match the result is empty and recorded; do not claim that retrieval necessarily returns a hit or necessarily returns nothing.
- Verification three: input the draft request "Based on the three materials above, add batch B-0417 to the resale listing list," compare the action word in the request with the authorization status, and observe that while the request is pending review and no approval record is attached, the output remains pending verification and the listing action requires a separate business interface and explicit authorization before it can execute.