What the documents look like
Producer export tax refunds combine the offset of domestic sales tax with the export refund calculation. That combined structure shapes what store service and internal training teams hand over: the exemption, offset and refund declaration detail table, export contracts, the sales subsidiary ledger, and export customs declarations. The brief lists electronic tax bureau records, ERP sales data, customs electronic information and financial ledgers as the data sources, with a monthly update frequency. Store service and internal training routing places document handover status, pending requests and manual verification actions into workflow nodes, so that interaction nodes collect information and pass it to later nodes. Errors in this category lead to incorrect tax amounts, reduced refunds, or corrected tax filings, so routing carries information collection and transfer only, not tax determination.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node triggers an interaction state, records the workflow state, and after the user completes required fields and submits, passes the form information to later nodes. The user selection node also enters an interaction state, and when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding branch. Both nodes are user interaction nodes, can be added repeatedly, and trigger execution. The constraint is that interaction nodes collect values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval results do not constitute authorization, and a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated business records or unauthorized records. Only libraries using the same vector model can be associated together; libraries across different vector models cannot. Check the identifier first and exclude those that do not match. Optional paths shown in a general flowchart do not mean every request executes all of them; image retrieval requires an image input and model capability, and reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to settings.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a tax accountant at an export producer submits a handover request in March 2026 with the following original text: "Attached are one February 2026 exemption, offset and refund declaration detail table, export contract number HT-2026-021, sales subsidiary ledger volume 2, and three export customs declarations; please have store service staff verify and forward for internal training use." The proposed determination sentence is: "The above materials have passed the exemption, offset and refund declaration review." The request is in a pending verification state, with no review conclusion or authorization signature recorded, so the determination is pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration items below relate to this page's exercise. They list only documented settings or implementation check items, and the values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect material name, period covered, and handover person | Compare item by item against the four material types listed in the exercise text |
| Required form fields | Material name and period covered set as required | The exercise includes period February 2026; without it, comparison is not possible |
| User selection node | Options are "materials complete" and "materials pending" | Compare against the pending verification state; do not preset a conclusion |
| Branch connection | Each of the two branches connects to a later verification node | Verify branch connections one by one and check that outputs are received |
| Output handover | Form information passes to the verification node | Compare whether input fields match fields read downstream |
| External operation split | Review conclusion, write-back and synchronization connect to separate interfaces | The exercise records no review, so none is written into the workflow |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as a passed review. The proposed determination sentence "has passed the exemption, offset and refund declaration review" and the original text "please verify and forward for internal training use" are not the same fact. Submission collects information only, and the review conclusion is missing.
- Treating retrieval results as an authorization boundary. A similarity score does not constitute a permission or entity filter, and retrieval does not exclude unauthorized records; identifiers and access rights must be checked separately.
- Treating the interaction state record as a global switch. State recording by the form input and user selection nodes is node behavior; no separate global state recording switch is documented, and no submission count or snapshot guarantee is provided.
How to verify the setup
- Input the exercise original text and the proposed determination sentence, and compare whether "has passed the review" and "please verify and forward for internal training use" share the same subject, the same period and the same field. Expected observation: the two do not constitute the same fact, and the determination is pending verification.
- Input the fields collected by the form node and the fields read by the downstream verification node, and compare field names and values. Expected observation: material name, period covered and handover person match, with no missing required field.
- Input two library identifiers that use different vector models, and compare the model identifiers. Expected observation: when the identifiers differ, exclude joint association and record the actual observation; do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall. For empty-result handover, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design; do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].