What the documents look like
Dealer rebate calculation happens after sales close. The reconciliation object is the policy basis and the financial treatment result, not stock movement. This page covers the procurement and supplier records side of that work, where the recurring materials are rebate policies, sales achievement tables, reconciliation statements and red-letter invoices. The data comes from ERP sales, dealer remittances, the contract ledger and the finance system. Update frequency is monthly or quarterly, so the workflow routing step has to carry periodic materials through interaction nodes and hand the collected values onward.
Two node behaviours carry this task. A form input node enters an interaction state when triggered, collects the required fields, and after submission passes the collected form information to later nodes. A user selection node also enters an interaction state when triggered, and after the user makes a choice it evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both node types record the workflow state and continue downstream once the user finishes interacting. In procurement and supplier records, the reconciliation request, the material submission and the branch decision all depend on these node behaviours.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Rebate materials carry both a period attribution and a subject attribution. Information collected by the workflow must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes, and the output must be compared field by field against the input. Retrieval or form collection does not constitute authorised execution; order writes, document backfill and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later process. State recording at an interaction node is the node's own behaviour, and no global state-recording switch is documented.
Hypothetical drill sample. A brand finance team, during a quarterly rebate reconciliation, receives paper materials submitted by a dealer. The sales achievement table reads: "Q3 2024 sales achievement table: subject is East China dealer A, object is the purchase quantity of model X, status is confirmed, effective scope is 1 July 2024 to 30 September 2024." A reconciliation statement reads: "As of 30 September 2024, dealer A's remittance amount and return amount are listed; the red-letter invoice is pending issuance." The draft sentence to be judged is: "Dealer A's Q3 rebate has been calculated and can proceed to invoice offset." That draft sentence concerns rebate calculation completion and invoice execution, while the materials show only achievement and reconciliation status, with no rebate calculation result and no invoice authorisation stated.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation check items for workflow routing that relate to this page's sample. The values are hypothetical starting points for this trial, used for comparison, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node required fields | Subject, object, period, status | After submission, compare values received by later nodes |
| User selection node branch | Yes branch connected to the calculation judgement | Verify branch connection and output one by one |
| Interaction state recording | Recorded when the node is triggered | Check the interaction state and the condition for continuing execution |
| Information passing target | Retrieval, judgement or interface node | Compare output against input item by item |
| External operation split | Order writes and document backfill connect to a separate interface | Check whether a downstream implementation is declared |
| Retrieval scope identifier | Same vector model library | Check the identifier and exclude non-matching ones |
Three common errors
- Treating sales achievement information collected by the form as a completed rebate calculation. In the sample the achievement table status is confirmed, while the draft sentence states the rebate has been calculated. Subject and period match; the fields differ. Collected information does not constitute a completed calculation, and a separate judgement or interface node is required.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as invoice authorisation. In the sample the reconciliation statement shows the red-letter invoice as pending issuance, while the draft sentence states invoice offset can proceed. Pending issuance and executable invoicing are different facts, and a branch selection does not produce authorisation.
- Treating the retrieval scope identifier as a permission or entity isolation boundary. In the sample the retrieval scope identifier is the same vector model library, used to check the identifier and exclude non-matching ones. A similarity setting does not exclude unrelated business or unauthorised records, and retrieval does not perform an authorisation function.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, and compare the four fields of subject, object, period and status. The achievement table fields are East China dealer A, model X, Q3 2024, confirmed. The draft sentence fields are dealer A, Q3, rebate calculation complete, executable invoicing. Where fields do not match, judge the draft sentence as unsupported and keep the evidence gap open.
- Input the reconciliation statement source text and the draft sentence, and compare the red-letter invoice status. The statement field is red-letter invoice pending issuance; the draft sentence field is executable invoice offset. Where the status does not match, judge invoice execution as unsupported and do not treat pending issuance as executed.
- Input the retrieval scope identifier and a query request, and observe whether the returned results match the identifier. Libraries on the same vector model can be associated together; libraries on different vector models cannot. Check the identifier first and exclude non-matching ones, record the actual observation, and do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls. An empty-result handoff can be checked against an explicit paper input of [] to verify the downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].