What the documents look like
B2B marketplace matching transactions run on a document set that includes enterprise verification materials, inquiry and quotation sheets, electronic contracts, and platform settlement statements. Compared with wholesale market stall trading, online verification and electronic contracts appear more often, and the transaction does not depend on a physical stall. In store service and internal training, operations staff take over these materials for checking, and workflow routing connects form input, user selection, and the nodes that follow.
The stated data sources are the B2B platform, the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, payment records, and logistics traces. Daily and per-order update frequency means that handover requires checking material status order by order. It does not establish a batch synchronization mechanism or a transaction-triggered mechanism.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When a form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user completes the required information and submits, the node collects what was entered and passes it to later nodes. When a user selection node is triggered, the conversation likewise enters an interaction state, and after the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both are user interaction nodes, can be added repeatedly, and trigger execution.
Recording state during interaction is behavior of the interaction node. No separate global state-recording switch is documented. Collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a store operations staff member receives a paper handover request. The attached material reads: "Supplier A submitted enterprise verification materials on 1 March 2025; verification status is pending review. Inquiry and quotation sheet number XJ-031; quotation validity runs to 31 March 2025. The electronic contract text has not been signed." The proposed determination sentence is: "Supplier A has completed verification and may enter the matching and quotation process." A determination must use the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The verification status field reads pending review; it does not state that review was passed. An unsigned contract is not an effective contract. The proposed determination sentence is unsupported, and the evidence gap should be recorded.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented | Enters interaction state when triggered, collects required information, passes it to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Documented | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice; verify branch connections one by one |
| Output handoff | Implementation check | Compare each form output against the input of the later retrieval, judgment, or interface node |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | Check whether the interaction node records state; do not claim a global state switch |
| External action separation | Implementation check | Order writing, document backfill, and external synchronization require a separate business interface |
| Hypothetical exercise starting point | Hypothetical value | This exercise treats the verification status field check as a required step, because that field reads pending review in the sample; compare it word by word against the source material |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending verification as completed verification. In the sample the verification status field reads pending review, while the proposed determination sentence says verification is completed. The input and the source text disagree, and the comparison result is unsupported.
- Treating quotation validity as a supply period. The sample gives quotation validity to 31 March 2025 and states no supply period. The proposed determination sentence infers entry into the matching process from that date, which is a field mismatch.
- Treating an unsigned contract as an effective contract. The sample states plainly that the electronic contract text has not been signed, and the proposed determination sentence does not address that status. The comparison result is an evidence gap.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the proposed determination sentence. Compare the verification status field value "pending review" against "completed verification." If the two disagree, the determination is unsupported and the gap is recorded.
- Input the quotation validity field and the process conclusion in the proposed determination sentence. Compare whether validity and supply period are the same field. If the source text states no supply period, the determination is pending confirmation.
- Input the contract signature status "not signed" and the proposed determination sentence. Compare the two facts of signature and effectiveness. If the source text contains no effectiveness clause, the determination is an evidence gap, and no authorization is supplied.
Retrieval checks observe only what is actually returned. They do not guarantee a first-hit result or full recall. For empty-result handoff, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual observation.