What the documents look like
This page covers one task inside customer-service knowledge-base maintenance: inventory procurement and supplier records, with the work placed at the workflow routing step. Unlike platform refund and return handling, knowledge-base maintenance is preparatory question-and-answer material organisation and does not approve refunds directly. The routing output is therefore reference material and handover leads for customer-service staff, and it does not constitute a refund, an order placement, or a settlement action.
Three industry facts shape this task. First, the main data sources are the customer-service system, product detail pages, after-sales issue statistics, and quality-inspection sampling. Inventory procurement and supplier records typically appear as FAQ entries, script templates, product parameter tables, and escalation tickets, and the field conventions across these four document types may not agree. Second, the typical roles involved are customer-service supervisors, knowledge-base operators, and product operators. Material maintenance and procurement execution sit with different positions, so a form value collected or an option selected during routing represents what a user filled in or chose, and it does not represent approval. Third, the consequences of error are answers that miss the question, escalated complaints, and failed customer-service training. Routing therefore needs to keep source material, draft sentences, and handover requests clearly separated.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When a form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user completes the required information and submits, the node collects the form information and passes it to subsequent nodes. When a user selection node triggers, the conversation likewise enters an interaction state, and when the user makes a choice the node judges that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes are user-interaction nodes, can be added repeatedly, and trigger execution. Interaction waiting, state recording, and dialog hiding follow the documented description; no global state-recording switch, submission count, automatic judgement, or snapshot guarantee is added.
Collected information must be passed explicitly to subsequent retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes, and output is compared item by item against input. Order writing, document backfill, and external state synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later process; the collected form value alone does not complete those business actions. Retrieval returns material and does not carry authorisation; a relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together, so identifiers should be checked first and non-matching items excluded, without running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls. Optional paths shown in an overall flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to configuration.
Hypothetical paper exercise (not pointing to any real customer or company): the source material reads, "Supplier A's March 2025 quotation states: Model A filter element unit price 12 yuan, quotation valid until 30 June 2025; the procurement request from the same period states: intended purchase of 500 Model A filter elements from Supplier A, request date 10 April 2025, not yet approved." The draft sentence to be judged reads, "Supplier A has confirmed supply of 500 units at 12 yuan, and the parameter table can be backfilled." This draft goes beyond the source: a quotation validity date is not a supply deadline, the request is in an unapproved state, and the 500 units are not confirmed.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centres on the exercise above and lists only documented settings or implementation check items. Where a value is needed, it is a starting point for this hypothetical trial, with the comparison object stated.
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Comparison and notes |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect procurement request number and supplier name | After submission the information passes to later nodes; check that passed fields match the form's required items |
| User selection node | Options are "needs manual review" and "material can be archived" | After the user chooses, the corresponding "yes" branch executes; check branch connections item by item |
| Interaction state check | Entering the interaction state after triggering | Compare with the documented interaction-node behaviour; no state-recording switch is added |
| Output handover check | Pass form values to a retrieval or judgement node | Compare output against input field by field; record missing fields as gaps |
| External action separation | Parameter-table backfill and state synchronisation | Compare with a business interface or later process; a form value is not treated as executed |
| Referenced material scope | Two to three sentences of source material in this exercise | Compare sentence by sentence against the draft; conclusions beyond the source are not adopted |
Three common errors
- Treating a quotation validity date as a supply deadline. The input is the exercise source material and the draft sentence; comparing the quotation validity date of 30 June 2025 against "has confirmed supply of 500 units at 12 yuan" shows that the draft contains a supply confirmation not stated in the source, and this should be recorded as unsupported.
- Treating an unapproved request as an approved purchase. The input is the request date of 10 April 2025 and the not-yet-approved status; comparing against the draft phrase "the parameter table can be backfilled" shows that the approval status is missing. A pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission, and it does not constitute approval.
- Treating a collected form value as a completed external write. The input is the request number and supplier name collected by the form input node; comparing whether parameter-table backfill and state synchronisation have a separate interface or later process shows that the node output reaches only later nodes, no business write is evidenced, and this is recorded as a gap.
How to verify the setup
- For the exercise source material and the draft sentence, input both full texts and compare whether the draft contains a supply confirmation or approval conclusion not stated in the source. If one appears, judge the sentence as beyond the source; the expected result is that the sentence does not pass.
- For the user selection node, input the options "needs manual review" and "material can be archived", and compare whether the user's choice and the "yes" branch connections correspond item by item. If a branch connection is missing or misplaced, record it; the expected result is that branches can be checked one by one.
- For empty-result handover, input the paper value of an empty array [] and compare whether downstream nodes are designed to handle empty input, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. If downstream has no empty-value handling, record the gap; the expected result is that the gap is explicitly retained.