What the documents look like
Channel diversion reviews protect regional and price order. The working materials are anti-counterfeit code records, distributor shipment records, e-commerce platform prices, and market inspection material. They do not involve rebate amount calculation, which belongs to a different review category. Day-to-day documents include diversion complaint forms, penalty notices, and investigation photographs. The update rhythm is weekly or irregular.
The primary task on this page is inventory procurement and supplier records. It answers whether the procurement source, supplier entity, and authorization scope of a given batch match the review materials. An HTTP integration retrieves query results from an external system into the orchestration for later manual comparison. The integration itself does not complete an authorization determination.
Two or three industry facts shape this task. First, the review handles regional and price order rather than rebate amounts, so the fields retrieved from an external system concern supplier identity, supply region, and batch, not settlement figures. Second, source materials arrive from several systems with different update rhythms, so a retrieved record and a complaint form may describe the same batch at different points in time. Third, the practitioners are brand channel control staff, anti-counterfeit teams, and regional managers, so the retrieved data supports human comparison rather than automatic enforcement.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
The external interface selects its own request address and method according to its documentation. The address can reference variables through {{}}. Params, Headers, and Body are checked separately. Authorization credentials are injected through secure configuration and are not written into public samples. Variables come from global variables, system variables, and upstream node outputs, and the actual passed values are checked item by item. In test mode, chatId and responseChatItemId do not exist, so an empty debug value is expected behavior rather than a business fault. Return values are extracted through JSON path, and the formatted output can serve as input to a later node. What the interface returns is data. Business authorization, approval, database writes, and external synchronization still require their stated downstream implementation.
Hypothetical drill sample. A brand channel control team receives a diversion complaint form reading: "Complaint target: East China distributor A; product involved: batch A series; complaint reason: this batch is sold at low price in a South China e-commerce store; attachments: three pages of anti-counterfeit code records, two investigation photographs." A supplier record excerpt reads: "Supplier B, supply region: East China, authorization valid until March 2026." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "Supplier B's supply authorization covers South China sales." That sentence conflicts with the supply region stated in the source text.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists check items tied to this feature and this primary task, using the sample above. The values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, not official defaults.
| Check item | Hypothetical starting point in this exercise | Reason for the choice and the object of comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Request address | External supplier record interface address | Determined by that interface's documentation, corresponding to the supplier entity named in the complaint form |
| Request method | POST | Chosen per the interface documentation's query semantics, consistent with a read-only query purpose |
| Headers authorization | Authorization injected through secure configuration | Compared against the interface documentation requirement; credentials are not written into public samples |
| Body fields | Supplier name, batch number | Compared item by item against the field names in the complaint form and the supplier record excerpt |
| Variable references | {{supplierName}}, {{batchNo}} | Checked against upstream node outputs to confirm the actual passed values are non-empty |
| Return value extraction | JSON path configured per the interface response structure | Compared against the actual interface response structure to confirm the supply region field is retrieved |
Three common errors
- Treating a supplier record returned by the interface as an authorization conclusion. In the sample, supplier B's supply region is East China. Retrieving that field only shows the data exists. The authorization scope determination still requires manual comparison of the complaint form and the supplier record.
- Treating an empty
chatIdin test mode as an interface failure. The documentation states that this field does not exist in test mode. A debug empty value and a missing business record are different conditions and are recorded separately. - Inserting a string extracted by JSON path directly into a conclusion sentence. The sample draft sentence "authorization covers South China" and the source text "supply region: East China" take mutually exclusive values on the same field. The draft sentence is unsupported and the source text is the object of comparison.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample complaint form text and the supplier record excerpt. Compare the supply region field returned by the interface against the "East China" stated in the source text, and observe whether the two agree. If the return shows South China, record the difference and retain the source text. Do not treat that difference as establishing authorization.
- Input the draft sentence "Supplier B's supply authorization covers South China sales." Compare it against the source text "supply region: East China, authorization valid until March 2026," and observe whether the draft sentence is supported by the source text. The sentence and the source text take mutually exclusive values on the same field, so the sentence is judged unsupported.
- Input an empty-result scenario, using the paper input
[]to check the downstream node design, and observe whether the downstream handles an empty result explicitly. A retrieval or interface returning an empty result does not indicate that authorization is absent. It indicates that no data was retrieved this time. Record the gap and route it to manual comparison.
Across all three checks, retrieval and relevance scoring do not perform authorization or entity isolation. A similarity setting does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Where the source text is silent, the field remains unknown, and the gap is recorded rather than filled with an assumed value.