What the documents look like
This category prices traffic and conversion continuously rather than waiting on a platform campaign review. The main data sources named in the brief are Qianchuan, JD Kuaiche, Alimama and store transaction data. Day-to-day documents are the delivery plan, the keyword report, the audience package description and the conversion attribution table. Updates arrive daily and hourly, so a handover item can change state inside one routing cycle. Any check of a handover item therefore has to state the date range the item covers.
In the store service and internal training setting, workflow routing handles two kinds of input: handover material submitted by a store, and a draft sentence or request produced during training. The training side does not price traffic. It checks whether a draft sentence or a handover request matches the material it claims to describe, and it keeps the authorization boundary visible.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, the dialog box is hidden, and the workflow continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the required information the user fills in and passes it to later nodes.
The User Selection node is also a user interaction node with the same trigger behaviour: the dialog box is hidden, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch.
Both behaviours belong to the nodes themselves. No separate global state-recording switch is documented, and none should be assumed.
Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorization. A form collects values. Business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a business interface or a later process. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the identifier must be checked first, non-matching libraries excluded, and the actual observation recorded.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material reads, "Store A handed over its delivery plan to the training group for checking during 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025; the handover request number is PX-2025-031 and the current status is awaiting confirmation by the training group." A draft sentence to be judged reads, "Store A's delivery plan handover is complete." The check input is the source material plus the draft sentence. The comparison is between "awaiting confirmation by the training group" and "handover is complete." The observable result is that the draft sentence states a completed handover while the source material records a pending confirmation, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check on this page | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Enters interaction state on trigger; collects required information | Passes collected values to later nodes after submission |
| User Selection node | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice | Verify each branch connection individually |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information explicitly to the later retrieval, decision or interface node | Compare each output against its input |
| Interaction state check | State recording is node behaviour | No separate global state-recording switch is documented |
| External action split | Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization connect to a business interface | A form does not constitute authorization |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | This hypothetical trial uses 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025 as its period | The reason for choosing it is that it matches the source material; compare against the source material dates |
Three common errors
- Writing a pending status as complete. The input is the source material line "the current status is awaiting confirmation by the training group." The comparison is against the draft sentence "handover is complete." The observable result is that the two status fields differ, and the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a form submission as authorized execution. The input is the required information collected by the form. The comparison is against an order write or an external synchronization action. The observable result is that the form only collects values; business verification and the write require a downstream implementation.
- Associating retrieval libraries across different vector models. The input is the library identifiers of two different vector models. The comparison is whether the model identifiers match. The observable result is that non-matching libraries are excluded, and no cross-model retrieval is run to compare missed recall.
How to verify the setup
- Using the hypothetical sample above, enter the source material and the draft sentence, compare "awaiting confirmation by the training group" against "handover is complete," and observe whether the draft sentence matches the source status. The condition is met when the two agree; when they do not agree, record the draft sentence as unsupported.
- Using a hypothetical input of [] to check the downstream design, compare whether the empty-result handling logic is explicit and observe whether the downstream node has corresponding handling. The condition is met when that handling is explicit; otherwise record a gap.
- Using two library identifiers from different vector models, compare whether the identifiers match and observe whether non-matching libraries are excluded. The condition is met when they are excluded and the actual observation is recorded. Do not fabricate a run result for a shared association.