What the documents look like
B2B platform matchmaking depends on online certification and electronic contracts, and the transaction process does not rely on a physical stall. Store service and internal training handle four document types: enterprise certification materials, inquiry and quotation sheets, electronic contracts, and platform settlement statements. Enterprise certification materials and electronic contracts carry the core facts used to judge subject identity and contract status. Data sources named in the brief are the B2B platform, the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, payment records, and logistics traces, with updates occurring daily or per order.
For this page the relevant point is that these documents arrive as structured fields rather than free conversation. A certification record states a company name, a unified social credit code, a certification status, and a submission date. A contract states a contract number, a signing subject, a contract status, and an effective date. The form and interaction step collects values that a person enters and passes them to later nodes. The nodes themselves do not contain business database functions. Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations need an external system or a later node.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The form input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits until the user completes the interaction. After the user fills the required information and submits, the node collects the entered form information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user interaction node. When the user makes a choice, the node judges that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and trigger execution.
Several constraints follow. Certification status and contract status are values a person enters or reads; the node does not verify them against an external registry. Approval of certification and confirmation of contract effect are not completed inside the node. Retrieval or a submitted form does not constitute authorization to act, so during an operations handover the authorization state of each material, operation, or request must be checked separately.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A supplier submits enterprise certification materials. The source text reads: "Supplier name: Hongyuan Machinery Parts Co., Ltd.; Unified social credit code: 91330100MA2XXXXX7B; Certification status is pending review; Submission date: March 10, 2025." A separate electronic contract reads: "Contract number: HY-2025-0312; Signing subject: Hongyuan Machinery Parts Co., Ltd.; Contract status: signed; Effective date: March 15, 2025." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This supplier has completed platform certification and may execute matchmaking transactions." The phrase "has completed platform certification" does not match the source value "pending review," so the draft sentence is not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | After triggering, enters the interaction state, records the workflow state, and continues only after the user completes the interaction | Collects the enterprise certification fields |
| Required-information check | List the information this task cannot omit, then test the missing case and the completed case separately | Checks supplier name, unified social credit code, certification status, submission date |
| User selection node | Executes the "yes" branch according to the user's choice | Used to judge whether certification status has passed |
| Interaction state | After the node triggers, the workflow state is recorded and execution waits for the interaction | The draft sentence is judged only after manual comparison |
| Downstream division of work | Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations are implemented in an external system or a later node as needed | Certification approval and contract effect confirmation are not completed in the node |
| Hypothetical trial starting value | For this exercise the certification status starting value is set to "pending review," matching the source text; the comparison method is field-by-field comparison of the source text and the draft sentence | Used only for this paper check, not as an official default |
Three common errors
- Treating "pending review" as "certification completed." Input: the enterprise certification source text above. Comparison: the draft sentence "This supplier has completed platform certification." Observable result: the certification status field values differ, so the draft sentence is not supported.
- Treating "signed" as identical to "contract in effect" or "deal concluded." Input: the electronic contract source text above. Comparison: the contract status field and the effective date field. Observable result: signing and taking effect are separate facts and cannot substitute for each other.
- Treating form submission as business authorization or completed approval. Input: the form information collected by the form input node. Comparison: approval records in a later node or external system. Observable result: the node only passes information and does not perform approval, so authorization state must be checked separately.
How to verify the setup
- Input the enterprise certification source text and the draft sentence above. Compare the certification status field values. If the draft sentence claims "has completed platform certification" while the source text says "pending review," the draft sentence is not supported. Record the evidence gap: no approval result is stated.
- Input the electronic contract source text above. Compare the contract status field and the effective date field. If the contract status is "signed" and the effective date is March 15, 2025, confirm that signing and taking effect are two independent facts. Do not infer that signing directly means the deal is concluded.
- Input an explicit paper empty result [] and check how the downstream design handles the absence of retrieval results. Observe whether the downstream treats it as an empty result. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual observation.