What the documents look like
Work on foreign-exchange receipt and settlement and on trade directory listing centres on four document types: foreign-exchange receipt advices, trade contracts, invoices, and foreign-exchange business registration materials. The concern is the authenticity of the foreign-exchange funds and the underlying trade background. A full set of letter-of-credit documents is not examined in this category. Records update per transaction and per month. In store service and internal training, the workflow routing step receives these four document types together with handover requests produced when settlement is handled or when the trade background has to be explained. The stated data sources are State Administration of Foreign Exchange policy, bank online banking, the enterprise financial ledger, and customs export data. Inside routing these sources function as inputs awaiting verification; entering a form node does not confer authorization on them.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When the 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 passes the collected information to subsequent nodes. The user selection node also enters an interaction state; once the user makes a choice, the corresponding "yes" branch executes. Interaction state and state recording are behaviours of the interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is set. Collected information must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, decision, or interface nodes, and output must be compared item by item against input. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later flow; forms and retrieval by themselves do not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical drill sample: a store receives one foreign-exchange receipt advice naming the payer as "Overseas Company A" and the payee as "Domestic Company B", with amount and date visible on the advice. The attached trade contract shows the seller as "Domestic Company B" and the buyer as "Overseas Company A". One handover request awaiting a decision reads: "Please register this receipt directly as settled and backfill it to the financial ledger." The status "settled" does not appear in the sample materials; the advice shows only the fact of receipt, and the settlement handling record is absent. Checking must confirm the same entity, the same period, and the same field. The sample does not state settlement status, so the matter is unsupported and cannot be judged negative or contradictory.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists officially documented settings or implementation check items tied to this feature and this main task, all built around the sample above. The values are starting points for this hypothetical drill only, with the reason for choosing them and the comparison object stated; they are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical drill starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect payer, payee, amount, and date in the sample | Compare item by item against the receipt advice text; record a gap when a field is absent |
| User selection node | Two branches: "continue checking" and "route to a person" | Verify branch connections one by one and observe which branch executes after the choice |
| Interaction state check | Enter interaction state and record workflow state after triggering | Compare against the documented interaction-node behaviour; no separate global switch is set |
| Output handover check | Pass form information to a later retrieval or decision node | Compare output against input item by item and confirm the transfer relationship |
| External action split | Mark settlement registration and ledger backfill as requiring a separate business interface | Compare against the sample request and confirm the action is not completed inside the form node |
| Retrieval scope check | Use the sample materials as input and observe returned results | Record the actual observation; no guarantee of a first-position hit or full recall |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as authorized execution. In the sample, "Please register this receipt directly as settled and backfill it to the financial ledger" is a handover request; the form node collects information and passes it to later nodes, while registration and backfill require a separate business interface. The error is equating a collected value with a completed business action. To check, input that request, compare the form node output against the business interface implementation, and observe whether a write occurs without the interface.
- Judging an unstated status as negative or contradictory. The sample receipt advice shows only the receipt and does not state settlement status; under the same entity, same period, and same field there is no mutually exclusive value, so the matter is unsupported or pending verification. The error is fabricating an authorization or effectiveness clause to obtain a definite answer. To check, input the receipt advice and contract text, compare whether the settlement field appears, and observe whether a definite conclusion of "settled" is produced.
- Treating retrieval or similarity as permission or entity isolation. A same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library cannot be extended to require the same model for a business-registration website or another external system, and libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together. The error is using relevance to exclude unrelated business or unauthorized records. To check, input the sample materials, compare returned record identifiers against the access scope, and observe whether entity or permission filtering occurred on similarity alone.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the receipt advice and trade contract text from the hypothetical sample, compare the payer, payee, amount, and date collected by the form input node against the source text item by item, and observe whether missing fields are recorded as gaps. The expectation is that matching items pass and missing items remain pending verification; no claim of actual testing is made.
- Verification two: input the handover request awaiting decision, "Please register this receipt directly as settled and backfill it to the financial ledger", compare whether the "settled" status in the request appears in the sample materials, and observe whether any registration or backfill action occurs without the business interface. The expectation is that the request remains pending verification and the business action requires a separate interface.
- Verification three: use the sample materials as retrieval input, compare returned record identifiers against the access scope, and observe whether entity or permission exclusion occurs on relevance alone. If an empty result is returned, an explicit paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design; no claim is made that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. When libraries across models cannot be associated, check identifiers first and exclude non-matching ones, record the actual observation, and do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.