What the documents look like
Import and export permit handling takes place before customs declaration and determines whether a shipment may lawfully cross the border. The document set for one shipment forms a cross-referencing evidence chain: an automatic import licence, a dual-use item licence, a contract, and a product description. Contract terms such as commodity name, model, quantity, and end use must correspond item by item with what the licence application states. Data sources include the commerce authority system, customs commodity codes, supplier materials, and the customer's statement of use. Updates are irregular and handled per shipment, so the workflow routing step treats single-shipment material checking as its basic unit. Batch synchronisation and real-time triggering mechanisms are not assumed.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When a form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state, records the workflow state, and waits for the user to complete the interaction. Required information is collected and passed to subsequent nodes after submission. When a user selection node triggers, the conversation likewise enters an interactive state; after the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The interactive state is recorded by the interactive node itself, and no separate global state-recording switch is set. Collected information must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes, and outputs are compared item by item against inputs. Order writing, document backfilling, and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or downstream process. Retrieval and forms do not themselves constitute authorised execution.
Hypothetical drill sample: an enterprise plans to import a batch of industrial equipment. The contract states "equipment model A-100, quantity 20 units, end user a processing plant, for metal surface treatment." The draft automatic import licence application form states "equipment model A-100, quantity 20 units, use for metal surface treatment." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "The contract and the licence application form agree on model, quantity, and use in all three items and may be submitted for approval." This sample is used to check the correspondence between form-collected fields and the contract text. Approval status and the submission action fall outside this page's scope of judgement.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason for choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Fields collected by the form input node | Commodity name, model, quantity, use | Correspond item by item with fields stated in the contract and licence; record any missing item as a gap |
| Branches of the user selection node | Two branches: "materials consistent" and "discrepancy exists" | Verify branch connections one by one per the documentation; automatic judgement is not assumed |
| Downstream node receiving output | Pass form fields to the subsequent comparison node | Compare output and input field names and values item by item |
| Manual checking action | Check the three fields of contract and licence application form | Compare same subject, same period, same field; only mutually exclusive values in the same field count as a contradiction |
| Division of external operations | Submission for approval and document backfilling connect to separate interfaces | Forms and retrieval do not perform authorised actions |
Three common errors
- Treating fields collected by the form as already-verified licence information. The form input node collects required information and passes it on; business verification and approval still require downstream implementation. Check the input as form fields and contract text, compare their values, and observe whether any field lacks item-by-item correspondence.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as an automatic judgement result. That node executes a branch according to the user's choice and does not automatically determine material consistency. Check the input as branch connections and the selection record, compare the actual choice with the branch taken, and observe whether the branch follows the choice.
- Treating retrieval results or a relevance score as a permission or entity filter. Retrieval does not handle authorisation, and relevance is not a category or permission filter. Check the input as returned retrieval records and the authorised scope, compare the record subject with the requesting subject, and observe whether records outside the authorised scope appear.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the contract text from the hypothetical sample, "equipment model A-100, quantity 20 units, use for metal surface treatment," together with the form fields. Compare the values of model, quantity, and use. The condition is met when all three items correspond completely and no item is missing.
- Verification two: input the draft sentence "The contract and the licence application form agree on model, quantity, and use in all three items and may be submitted for approval" and compare it with the sample text. The consistency portion is supported only when all three fields have corresponding source text and no unstated matter is present. Submission for approval is an external operation and falls outside this page's scope of judgement.
- Verification three: input the form field transfer path and the receiving entry of the downstream node. Compare output field names with input field names. The condition is met when each item corresponds and values agree. If a field is missing, record it as a gap pending verification and do not infer a negative conclusion.