What the documents look like
This category covers foreign-exchange receipt and settlement together with trade directory records. The work centres on the authenticity of FX funds and the trade background, and it does not review a full set of letter-of-credit documents. For the inventory procurement and supplier records task, the working materials are receipt advices, trade contracts, invoices, and FX business registration records. The update rhythm given for the category is per transaction and monthly. Those two facts shape the integration: a receipt advice carries a payer name, a contract carries a contract number and amount, and an invoice carries an invoice number and issue date. When these materials cross an HTTP interface, the returned fields have to line up item by item with the material values. The interface itself does not decide whether the trade background is genuine.
A second characteristic matters here. The typical operators are trade finance staff, bank relationship managers, and FX specialists, and the costly outcomes are bank rejection, an abnormal FX classification, and funds that cannot be posted. An HTTP call that returns a supplier record does not settle any of those questions. Retrieval and similarity scores carry no permission or entity-isolation duty, and retrieval is not authorization. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own stated downstream implementation.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
The HTTP module sends a request to a target address. Params carry path parameters and are common in GET requests. Body carries the request body and is common in POST and PUT requests. Headers carry special information. All three data locations can reference variables through {{}}, and the URL can also reference a variable. Variables come from global variables, system variables, and upstream node outputs. The documented system variables are appId, chatId, responseChatItemId, variables, cTime, and histories. The histories value defaults to at most 10 entries and its length cannot be modified. chatId and responseChatItemId do not exist in test mode. Return values are extracted by JSON path, and when the output type is set to string the value is formatted as a JSON string.
The chat endpoint uses APIKey authentication. When calling chat/completions, passing body.appId in the request body is recommended; the form Authorization: Bearer <apiKey>-<appId> is also supported for OpenAI SDK compatibility. The appId priority order is body.appId, then <apiKey>-<appId>, then the appId associated with the apikey under the older adaptation. A passed model or temperature field has no effect, because the orchestration decides those. With detail=true the intermediate values are returned, and in non-stream mode the result is held in responseData. The endpoint does not return the actual consumed Token value; if that number is needed, set detail=true and calculate the tokens inside responseData manually. Using authProxy to act for a team member requires the team owner to enable authProxy when creating or editing that key, and the proxied identity still needs permission on the target application and conversation.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A trade finance staff member submits an inventory procurement and supplier records handover request. The material text supplied for checking reads: "Supplier A signed procurement contract HT-2025-031 on 10 March 2025, with a contract amount of USD 120,000; the corresponding receipt advice SW-2025-041 shows USD 120,000 credited on 2 April 2025, with the payer name Supplier-A Trading; invoice INV-2025-018 was issued on 5 April 2025." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "This receipt has been checked against the supplier entity and the contract amount, and settlement can be processed." The request covers entity, object, date, and amount scope. Its authorization boundary is submission for checking, and it does not include authorization to execute settlement.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Request address | Enter per the external interface document; the address may reference {{BaseUrl}} | Compare character by character against the path given in the interface document |
| Request method | POST | Compare against the method declared in the external interface contract |
| Headers authentication | Authorization references an already configured variable | Compare against the key usage rules; credentials are not written into public samples |
| Body structure | Build JSON per the external interface contract | Compare field name and type item by item against the counterpart specification |
| Return value extraction | Configure the key by JSON path | Compare against the response example structure in the interface document |
| Output type | String | Compare against the format the downstream text processing step requires |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise and are not official default values. Before configuration, confirm the external interface document, the authentication method, and the return structure. Fields not provided in a document remain unknown.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval or similarity result as an authorization basis. The input is a supplier record returned by retrieval; the comparison object is the authorization boundary stated in the handover request; the observable result is that a retrieval hit does not change the authorization state. Retrieval is not authorization, and business verification and database writes need downstream implementation.
- Treating the absence of chatId and responseChatItemId in test mode as a business fault. The input is a test-mode request; the comparison object is the documented test-mode condition for those fields; the observable result is that the absence is the documented situation.
- Treating a pending-review state as granted authorization. The input is the submission state in the handover request; the comparison object is the three distinct facts of signature, contract effectiveness, and settlement execution; the observable result is that pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission and does not equal completed execution.
How to verify the setup
- Input the material text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample, then compare whether the draft sentence exceeds the authorization boundary stated in the material. The observable result is that the draft sentence claims settlement can be processed while the material supports only submission for checking, so the draft sentence is to be verified.
- Input the supplier name, the contract number, and the payer name on the receipt advice from the hypothetical sample, then compare whether the three point to the same entity. The observable result is that the correspondence between Supplier-A Trading and Supplier A is not stated in the material, so that part is unsupported.
- Input the contract amount of USD 120,000 and the credited amount of USD 120,000 on the receipt advice from the hypothetical sample, then compare the same field over the same period. The observable result is that the two agree. The link between invoice INV-2025-018 and the contract number is not stated in the material, and that part remains missing.