What the documents look like
Advertising on marketplace traffic is priced against traffic and conversion in near real time, so the working documents differ from platform promotion enrolment. The materials that matter for this page are the delivery plan, the keyword report, the audience package description and the conversion attribution table. These are refreshed daily or hourly.
For store service and internal training, the people involved are delivery specialists, brand marketing staff and agency operators. They hand over materials, operation requests and authorization status together. In this setting the two interactive nodes carry a narrow role. The form input node collects the information a user fills in and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node judges the user's choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes enter an interaction state, record the workflow state and wait. The workflow continues after the interaction is complete. This means the interactive forms step can carry information collection and branch judgement only. Field validation, business approval, database writes and external synchronization need a separate system or later nodes.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The form input node collects required information, passes it on after submission, and does not include a business database. The user selection node executes the "yes" branch according to the choice; it is not a staff directory or a business data selector. The interaction state is recorded and awaited after the node triggers, and execution continues once the interaction finishes. Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations are implemented in an external system or in later nodes as needed. A retrieval result or a form result does not constitute authorized execution, and a pending review request does not mean approval has been granted.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The original store delivery handover material reads: "From 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025, operator A is responsible for keyword bid adjustment for JD Kuaiche plan A. Plan A is in delivery status. The budget ceiling is not stated." The sentence to be judged reads: "Operator A has been authorized to adjust all bids for plan A, with no budget ceiling." The material states the period, the subject, the object and the status. It does not state the authorization scope or the budget ceiling. The sentence to be judged goes beyond the material.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Related setting or check on this page | Basis and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | List the required information items; pass them to later nodes after submission | Official documentation describes collection and passing |
| User selection node | Set the decision question and the "yes" branch | Official documentation describes branch execution by choice |
| Interaction state | Record the workflow state and wait after triggering | Official documentation describes continuation after the interaction |
| Required information check | Test the missing-item case and the completed case separately | Implementation check on this page |
| Downstream division of work | Validation, approval and write-back connect to another system | Official documentation states the node has no database |
| Hypothetical starting point | This page assumes a trial starting point of 1 March to 31 March | Compared with the period stated in the material |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as completed authorization. The sample material states that operator A is responsible for keyword bid adjustment and does not state the authorization scope. If the submission action is judged as granted authorization, the input is the original material and the sentence to be judged, the comparison is the authorization scope field, and the result is not supported when the material does not state it.
- Treating the user selection node as a staff directory. In the sample, plan A is in delivery status. If the branch result is treated as confirmation of the operator's identity, the input is the node selection result and the subject field in the material, the comparison is the subject identifier, and the judgement does not hold when the two do not match.
- Treating a retrieval result as a permission filter. The sample material does not state the budget ceiling. If a hit on plan A is used to conclude that no budget ceiling applies, the input is the retrieval observation and the material field, the comparison is the budget field, and the evidence gap is recorded when the material is missing.
How to verify the setup
- Input the original sample material and the sentence to be judged. Compare the authorization scope and budget ceiling fields. When the material does not state them, output not supported. Do not output a negation or a conflict.
- Input the original sample material and the handover request. Compare the subject, object, period and status fields. A contradiction is found only when all four match and the field values are mutually exclusive. Otherwise record pending verification.
- Input an empty result [] and check the downstream design. Observe how the later node handles the absence of a retrieval result. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Record the gap when it is missing.