What the documents look like
Channel diversion reviews concern regional and price order. The working materials are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices and investigation photographs. The supplied brief states that rebate amount calculation sits outside this category, so the workflow deals with where goods moved and at what price, not with how much rebate is owed. The brief describes the update rhythm as weekly and irregular. Where that rhythm does not affect routing behaviour, it can be left aside; it does not by itself imply batch synchronisation, full synchronisation, real-time processing or transaction-triggered execution.
For store service and internal training, the material commonly arrives as store inspection records, distributor shipment records and e-commerce platform price screenshots. Workflow routing has to place these materials in node order and pause at interaction nodes for a person to fill in or choose a value. The three most time-consuming steps named in the brief are tracing the goods source code, comparing low-price stores and executing penalties. Routing addresses the first two by ordering evidence collection; it does not carry out the third.
Two documented node types matter here. 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 continues after the user finishes the interaction. Once the user completes the required fields and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user interaction node with the same interaction and state-recording behaviour; when the user makes a choice, the node judges that choice and executes the corresponding branch. Both nodes wait and receive. Neither grants authorisation.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Retrieval results, collected form values and similarity scores do not represent business approval or execution permission. The effectiveness of a penalty notice, order writes, document backfill and external status synchronisation each require a separate business interface or a later process. A similarity score is not a category, entity or permission filter, and it does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorised records. Retrieval is not authorisation.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source material reads: "A store inspection record for one region states that from 3 June 2024 to 9 June 2024 the store offered goods with batch code range A-100 to A-140. A price monitoring screenshot from an e-commerce platform for the same period shows the same product selling below the regional suggested retail price. A distributor shipment record shows that batch dispatched to a different region." The draft sentence to be assessed reads: "The store has engaged in cross-regional sales; recommend handling as diversion and issuing a penalty notice." The source material supplies three items only: a batch code range, a price difference and a shipment destination. It lacks direct evidence of attribution between the store and the receiving region. The draft conclusion exceeds what the material supports, so it remains pending verification and cannot serve as a basis for a penalty.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Interaction node | Enters interaction state on trigger, collects required information, passes it to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Interaction node | Executes the corresponding branch after the user makes a choice; verify each branch connection individually |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | State recording is behaviour of the interaction nodes; no separate global state switch is set or claimed |
| Output handover check | Implementation check | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes; compare output against input item by item |
| External action separation | Implementation check | Penalty issuance, order writes and external synchronisation require a separate business interface |
| Hypothetical exercise starting value | Hypothetical value | This page assumes the batch code range A-100 to A-140 in the exercise sample, used for item-by-item comparison against the inspection record; this is not an official default |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorisation. The input is a keyword query from a diversion complaint form, and the comparison is between the retrieval result and the authorisation status of a penalty notice. Marking a high-similarity record as a directly punishable object is an error; a similarity score does not perform entity or permission filtering.
- Treating a collected form value as a verified fact. The input is the batch code range A-100 to A-140 submitted by the store, and the comparison is against the actual destination in the shipment record. Writing the submission straight into a penalty notice is an error; business verification and database writes need a downstream implementation.
- Treating a pending review state as approved. The input is the draft sentence recommending diversion handling and a penalty notice, and the comparison is against the three evidence items in the source material. Marking a pending conclusion as a completed penalty is an error; pending review does not demonstrate that operating permission has been obtained.
How to verify the setup
- For the hypothetical exercise sample, input the three items of source material and the draft sentence, then compare the draft conclusion against the supported range of the source. The draft sentence meets the condition only when the source contains direct evidence of attribution between the store and the receiving region. This sample lacks that evidence, so the result is recorded as pending verification.
- For the form input node, input the batch code range filled in by the store, then compare the submitted value against the value received by the downstream node. The output handover condition is met only when the two match item by item and the downstream node explicitly receives them.
- For the user selection node, input one selection action, then compare the selection result against the branch execution record. The branch connection condition is met only when the corresponding branch was actually executed and the other branch was not. A branch that was not executed stays unexecuted, and its behaviour is not inferred.