What the documents look like
Group-buy leader operations manage community pickup nodes and commission, and do not directly perform cold-chain quality inspection. The materials handled in store service and internal training include leader agreements, commission tables, pickup lists and community announcements. These come from the group-buy back office, leader chat groups, order details and after-sales records, with updates described as daily and per group. The work covered here is recruiting and training leaders, checking pickup, and handling neighbourhood after-sales requests. The state of each material affects how a workflow is arranged: whether an agreement is signed, whether a commission table covers the same period, which group and which day a pickup list belongs to, and which leaders an announcement addresses all need to be carried through the flow item by item. Workflow routing at this step passes information collected by interaction nodes to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later flow.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node enters an interaction state when triggered, collects required information, and passes that information to later nodes after submission. The User Selection node executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice. Recording of the interaction state is behaviour of the interaction node itself; no separate global state-recording switch is documented. Retrieval and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation, and a similarity setting cannot be treated as a means of excluding unrelated stores or unauthorised records.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Source text for comparison: "Leader agreement: Party A is the operating entity of a community group-buy platform, Party B is the person in charge of a community pickup point, agreement status is pending signature, effective scope runs from the date both parties sign." "Commission table: commission for a pickup point for June 2025 is calculated order by order from order details; the table does not state a settlement cycle." "Pickup list: for a pickup point, group of 18 June 2025, containing twelve order items, list status is pending check." The draft sentence to be judged: "The leader agreement is in effect, the commission table has a confirmed settlement cycle, the pickup list check is complete, and the store service training flow can begin." This draft sentence calls a pending signature effective, calls an unstated field confirmed, and calls a pending check complete. It is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Basis | Implementation check |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Official document: enters interaction state when triggered and collects required information | Check the required fields and whether submitted information reaches later nodes |
| User Selection node | Official document: executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice | Check branch connections against the selection result, one by one |
| Interaction state handling | Official document: the interaction node records state | Confirm the state is produced by the interaction node, with no separate global switch |
| Output handover | Official document: information is passed to later nodes | Compare output with input item by item and confirm downstream nodes receive it |
| Division of external operations | Official document: a business interface or later flow carries these | Order writes, document backfill and external synchronisation connect to a separate implementation |
| Hypothetical trial starting point: this paper sample begins from the three states pending signature, not stated, pending check | Hypothetical setting: the sample source text reads this way | Compare field by field against the draft sentence and observe whether a state jump appears |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending signature as effective. The sample source text reads "agreement status is pending signature" while the draft sentence reads "in effect". Same subject, same field, mutually exclusive values, so the draft is unsupported. The check takes the sample source text and the draft sentence as input, compares the agreement status field, and treats the appearance of "in effect" as not satisfying the condition.
- Treating an unstated field as confirmed. The sample source text reads "the table does not state a settlement cycle" while the draft sentence reads "has a confirmed settlement cycle", which supplies a field that was not present. The check takes the commission table source text and the draft sentence as input, compares the settlement cycle field, and treats the appearance of a specific cycle as not satisfying the condition.
- Treating a pending check as complete. The sample source text reads "list status is pending check" while the draft sentence reads "check is complete", which turns an open task into a result. The check takes the pickup list source text and the draft sentence as input, compares the list status field, and treats the appearance of "check is complete" as not satisfying the condition.
How to verify the setup
- Take the sample source text and the draft sentence as input, compare the agreement status field, and accept the draft only if it keeps "pending signature" or states that the claim is unsupported. The appearance of "in effect" is the failing branch.
- Take the commission table source text and the draft sentence as input, compare the settlement cycle field, and accept the draft only if it states "not stated" or "to be verified". The appearance of a specific cycle is the failing branch.
- Take the pickup list source text and the draft sentence as input, compare the list status field, and accept the draft only if it states "pending check". The appearance of "check is complete" is the failing branch. All three are checked against the paper sample, and no live test is claimed.