What the documents look like
Dealer rebate calculation happens after sales close. The work turns on policy interpretation and financial treatment rather than on stock movement, which separates it from inventory replenishment. The data arrive from ERP sales records, dealer remittances, the contract ledger and the finance system. Day-to-day material includes rebate policies, sales achievement tables, reconciliation statements and red-letter invoices. In store service and internal training, brand finance staff, channel sales staff and dealer finance staff pass these materials between each other for checking and handover.
The brief gives monthly and quarterly update frequencies. Those frequencies do not change how a form node behaves, so this page does not treat them as a trigger mechanism. This page addresses the form and interaction step only. It does not describe batch synchronization or real-time triggers.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The form input node is a user interaction node. When it fires, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the information the user fills in and passes it to later nodes. It does not carry its own business database function.
The user selection node is also a user interaction node. When it fires, 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. The node is not a personnel directory and not a business data selector.
Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations need implementation in an external system or in later nodes. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand finance staff member receives a sales achievement table submitted by a dealer during quarterly rebate calculation. The table states: "For the second quarter of 2025, product A sales achievement rate is 105%, and the return amount has been deducted." A draft sentence reads: "The dealer has completed all confirmations for this quarter's rebate calculation." The source material does not state the rebate calculation confirmation status or an authorization signature. The draft sentence remains unverified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented behavior | Check on this page |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Fires into an interaction state, collects filled information, passes it to later nodes | Check whether required fields cover subject, period, product and sales achievement rate |
| User selection node | Executes a branch according to the user's choice | Check whether branches separate "materials complete" from "materials missing" |
| Interaction state record | Records workflow state after the node fires and waits for the interaction to finish | Check whether state is retained after the interaction is interrupted |
| Required information check | List the information this task cannot do without, then test a missing item and a completed item separately | Walk through subject, object, status and valid scope against the hypothetical sample |
| Downstream handling split | Field validation, approval and write-back are implemented as needed in an external system or later nodes | Check whether a clear downstream handling node follows form submission |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as completed business approval. In the hypothetical sample, the draft sentence says "has completed all confirmations," while the material states only the achievement rate and the return deduction. The input is the draft sentence and the source material; the comparison is whether they share the same subject, the same period and the same field. When the material does not state a confirmation status, the result is unverified.
- Treating the user selection node as a personnel directory or permission filter. The input is the node's branch setup; the comparison is whether branch conditions involve personnel identity or permission judgment. A branch that executes only by option matches the documentation. A branch written as a permission filter does not.
- Treating retrieval results as a basis for authorization. The input is the list of materials returned by retrieval; the comparison is whether retrieval includes an authorization status field. Retrieval does not perform permission or entity isolation. When the authorization field is absent, authorization cannot be inferred.
How to verify the setup
- Use the hypothetical sample text as input and check whether the form's required fields cover subject, object, period and valid scope. If a field is missing, the interaction state should wait for completion; after completion, execution continues downward. The expected observation is that submission is not possible with a missing item and is possible after the item is supplied.
- Use the draft sentence "The dealer has completed all confirmations for this quarter's rebate calculation" as input and compare it with the source material to see whether a confirmation status and an authorization signature are stated. When the material does not state them, the result is unsupported and the sentence must not be marked as confirmed.
- Use the user selection node's branch setup as input and check whether branch conditions execute only by option. If a branch involves permission judgment, that judgment needs a separate external system implementation; the form node itself does not provide permission filtering. The expected observation is that branches execute by option, while permission judgment happens in a later node or an external system.