What the documents look like
For Tmall flagship store daily operations, inventory procurement and supplier materials draw on the Tmall merchant backend, ERP order tables, brand authorization letters, delivery commitment records, and after-sales tickets. The brand authorization letter determines whether a product can be published under flagship store identity. Delivery commitment records constrain 48-hour fulfillment. After-sales tickets reflect actual delivery gaps. These materials update daily and per order. Procurement and supplier records need to correspond item by item with the product publication page and the authorization scope.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. After the user fills required fields 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 selection, the node evaluates that selection and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Branch connections are verified one by one. The interaction state is recorded by the interaction node; no separate global state recording switch is documented. Collected supplier names, authorization numbers, and procurement quantities must be explicitly passed to downstream retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs are compared item by item against inputs. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or downstream process. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source text for checking is "Supplier A authorization letter number ZA-2024-017, authorized brand Jia, valid until December 31, 2025" and "Procurement request PO-0912, brand Jia, quantity 300 units, request date March 10, 2025." The draft sentence to be judged is "Supplier A has obtained authorization for brand Jia and can directly arrange procurement for PO-0912." The authorization letter subject is Supplier A, the object is brand Jia, and the valid scope runs to December 31, 2025. The procurement request subject is the procurement requester, the object is brand Jia, and the quantity is 300 units. The draft sentence merges the authorization fact with procurement execution. It lacks a record of whether the authorization covers that procurement batch and whether the procurement request has been approved.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Basis and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect required fields such as supplier name, authorization number, procurement quantity | Official document: after submission, pass to subsequent nodes |
| User Selection node | Set an authorization verification branch; after the user selects, execute the "yes" branch | Official document: verify branch connections one by one |
| Interaction state | Recorded by the interaction node; continue after the user completes interaction | Official document: no separate global state switch |
| Output handoff | Explicitly pass form information to retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes | Official document: compare outputs against inputs item by item |
| External operation division | Order writes, document backfill, and status synchronization connect to a separate business interface | Official document: not existing node behavior |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Authorization number comparison uses exact string matching | This paper check starting point, compared with manual review results |
Three common errors
- Treating a supplier name collected by Form Input as an already authorized subject. The input is the form field "Supplier A"; the comparison object is the subject field in the authorization letter source text. Even when the two match, a record of whether the authorization scope covers that procurement batch is still missing, so the status cannot be judged as authorized.
- Treating a "yes" branch selection at the User Selection node as procurement approval execution. The input is the user's selection action at the interaction node; the comparison object is the approval status field of the procurement request. A selection action and an approval status are different facts. When no approval record exists, the status remains pending verification.
- Treating an authorization letter fragment returned by the retrieval library as a permission filter result. The input is the retrieval query; the comparison object is the authorization scope field in the authorization letter source text. A relevance score does not perform subject or permission filtering. A retrieval result does not constitute authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Input the authorization letter source text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare whether the draft sentence merges the authorization fact with procurement execution. Observe whether it lacks both authorization coverage of the procurement batch and a procurement approval record. When both are missing, judge the sentence as unsupported.
- Input procurement request PO-0912 from the hypothetical sample. Compare the approval status field of the request with the selection action at the User Selection node. Observe whether the two are the same fact. When they differ, the selection action cannot be treated as approval.
- Input an explicit paper empty result []. Compare whether downstream nodes handle it according to the empty-result design. Observe whether downstream misjudges the empty result as no authorization or as already authorized. When neither holds, record the evidence gap.