What the documents look like
Platform product title and detail compliance covers the truthfulness of promotional claims and the display of qualification materials. It does not cover parcel delivery, which belongs to platform shipping operations. The main data sources named in the brief are the platform rules center, advertising law compliance checklists, brand asset libraries, and inspection agency reports. The daily documents are the product title table, detail page assets, the advertising prohibited-term list, and inspection reports. Typical roles are e-commerce product operations, legal compliance, and artwork review. Errors in this category can lead to product delisting, complaints, and administrative penalty risk. Data updates weekly and at each new product launch.
For store service and internal training, store staff hand the title table, detail assets, and prohibited-term list to operations or legal for checking. The authorization status of a checking request must be explicit. Submitting materials starts a review request. It does not constitute compliance approval or a listing permit. The form and interaction nodes described in the official FastGPT v4.17.2 documents do not change their behavior based on how often the source documents are updated.
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 before continuing. The node collects the information the user fills in and passes it to later nodes. It does not include a business database function of its own. The user selection node is also a user interaction node. It triggers the same interaction state and records workflow state. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding branch.
Neither node performs field validation, business approval, database writes, or batch operations. Those actions require an external system or later nodes. Retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorization to execute. A pending review status does not demonstrate that a user lacks permission to act.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a store submits one title review request. The material text is: "Product title table row 12: Summer ice-feel sun protection jacket UPF50+ absolute sun protection; detail page asset image 3: lowest price on the entire internet; advertising prohibited-term list item 7: absolute, lowest." The proposed copy sentence is: "This title has passed compliance review and can be listed." The review scope is limited to those three materials. The authorization boundary is that the store is initiating a review request, which does not include approval or listing execution. The request is in a pending review state and has not been approved.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented behavior or implementation check | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Triggers the interaction state, records workflow state, waits for the user to complete the interaction, then continues | Collects the title table row number, asset position, and prohibited-term list entry |
| Required-field check | List the information this task cannot omit, then test the behavior with the field missing and with it filled | When the authorization status field is missing from the sample, the interaction does not complete |
| User selection node | Executes the branch according to the user's choice | Selects the "submit for review" branch or the "return for supplementation" branch |
| Interaction state | Records workflow state and waits for interaction; continues downstream after the interaction completes | The pending request does not reach later nodes before the interaction completes |
| Downstream division of labor | Field validation, business approval, writes, and batch operations are implemented in an external system or later nodes as needed | Compliance approval and listing execution do not occur inside the form node |
The hypothetical starting point for this exercise is three required fields: material text, proposed copy sentence, and authorization status. This starting point is chosen because the sample review needs subject, object, and status information. The comparison method is the interaction behavior when one field is missing, where the interaction does not complete.
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as compliance approval. The input is the sample request. Compare the submission action with the approval status. The observable result is that after submission the request remains pending review and no approval record is produced.
- Treating the user selection branch as a personnel directory or business data selector. The input is the choice "submit for review." Compare the node behavior with a directory query. The observable result is that the node only executes a branch and does not return a personnel or business data list.
- Treating retrieval or form collection as authorized execution. The input is the sample materials. Compare the collection scope with the authorization boundary. The observable result is that the materials enter the review process and no listing or write-back action is triggered.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the sample material text and the proposed copy sentence. Compare "absolute sun protection" and "lowest price on the entire internet" in the proposed sentence with item 7 of the advertising prohibited-term list. The observable result is that the proposed sentence contains terms listed in the prohibited-term list, the review request remains pending, and it does not display as passed.
- Enter the sample request with the authorization status missing. Compare required-field completeness with the interaction completion condition. The observable result is that the interaction does not complete, the workflow state remains waiting, and later nodes do not execute.
- Enter the choice of the "return for supplementation" branch. Compare the user selection with the branch execution result. The observable result is that the workflow enters the return branch and does not enter an approval or listing branch. For an empty result, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design. This does not claim that a hypothetical rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together. Check the identifier only, exclude non-matching items, and record the actual observation.