What the documents look like
This category centers on foreign-exchange funds and the authenticity of the trade background. It does not review a full set of letter-of-credit documents. The materials handled day to day include foreign-exchange receipt advices, trade contracts, invoices, and foreign-exchange business registration materials. Data sources involve State Administration of Foreign Exchange policy, bank online banking, corporate financial ledgers, and customs export data.
For the inventory procurement and supplier materials task, the procurement contract, the supplier invoice, and the foreign-exchange receipt advice need to be compared on the same entity, the same period, and the same field. Materials update per transaction and per month. Workflow routing arranges interaction nodes and manual verification steps on that basis. It does not follow from this that batch synchronization, full synchronization, real-time triggering, or transaction-triggered mechanisms exist.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node is a user interaction node. When it is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user fills in the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted 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 corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and trigger execution. Interaction waiting, state recording, and hiding the dialog box are existing node behaviors. No separate global state-recording switch is set here.
Information that is collected must be explicitly passed to a subsequent retrieval, judgment, or interface node, and the output must be compared item by item against the input. Order writing, document backfilling, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a subsequent process. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorized execution. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter. Retrieval is not authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a foreign trade company submits a procurement contract. The source text reads: "Supplier: East China Metal Products Co., Ltd.; procurement object: galvanized steel sheet, 120 tons; contract amount: RMB 840,000; the foreign-exchange receipt advice shows the payer as South China Trading Co., Ltd., amount USD 120,000, dated March 18, 2025." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "The foreign-exchange receiving entity is consistent with the procurement contract supplier, so settlement may be processed." This sample is used only for this paper comparison and does not represent a real business record.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | User interaction | Collect supplier name, procurement object, amount, and receipt date; pass to subsequent nodes after submission |
| User selection node | User interaction | Set a yes branch for "whether to enter manual verification"; verify branch connections one by one |
| Output handoff | Implementation check | Pass form fields to a retrieval or judgment node; compare output against input for consistency |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | Check whether the conversation enters the interaction state and records state after the node is triggered |
| External operation division | Implementation check | Order writing and document backfilling connect to a separate business interface; not completed inside this node |
Three common errors
- Treating the supplier name collected in the form as an already-verified receiving entity. Input the sample contract and receipt advice, and label the roles separately: "East China Metal Products Co., Ltd." is the supplier and "South China Trading Co., Ltd." is the payer. The materials do not identify the receiving entity. Different payer and supplier names do not disprove a claim that the receiving entity matches the supplier. The draft lacks evidence identifying the receiving entity and remains unsupported.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as authorized execution without confirming whether subsequent nodes actually receive the output. For the check, input the selection result, compare whether the branch connection points to the manual verification node, and observe whether the branch is skipped.
- Treating a retrieval result or form submission as business authorization and directly triggering order writing. For the check, input the sample draft sentence, compare whether an external interface call record exists, and observe whether an unauthorized write action appears.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical contract source text, receipt advice and draft sentence. Trace each statement about the supplier, payer and receiving entity to its source. The materials name the supplier and payer but do not identify the receiving entity, so a match between the receiving entity and supplier cannot be confirmed. A different payer does not establish a different receiving entity. Conditions for processing settlement are not supplied either. Keep both the identity claim and settlement eligibility pending verification; do not invent a receiving party or settlement rule.
- Input the selection result of the user selection node. Compare whether the "yes" branch connects to the manual verification node. If the connection is missing, the branch has not taken effect and is recorded as a configuration gap.
- Input an empty-result handling scenario. Use the paper input [] to check the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream node handles empty input as such. If no corresponding handling exists downstream, record it as uncovered. Do not claim that retrieval necessarily returns an empty result.