What the documents look like
Creator sales campaigns depend on external creator fulfilment and commission settlement rather than internal brand scheduling. Four document types move through store service and internal training work: creator cooperation agreements, commission setting sheets, sample shipment sheets, and livestream performance reports. Staff handovers need the material handover state, operating authority, and pending requests recorded plainly.
The form input node belongs to the user interaction category. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits until the user completes the interaction. After submission, the collected form values pass to later nodes. The user selection node also enters an interaction state, records workflow state, and waits; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding branch. Neither interaction node carries business database, approval, or write-back duties. Field validation, business approval, and batch operations require their stated downstream implementation in external systems or later nodes.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The authorization state of a material cannot be inferred from retrieval or from a filled form. Forms collect values. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation. When an interaction node triggers, the dialog box is hidden and the conversation enters an interaction state, waiting until completion before continuing. This behavior carries no submission count limit, automatic judgment, or snapshot guarantee.
Hypothetical drill sample: a brand business representative and an MCN agency handle a store service handover for one creator sales campaign. The material text supplied for checking consists of three sentences. First: "The creator cooperation agreement (number H-01) states the cooperation period runs from 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025, and the commission ratio is settled according to the livestream performance report." Second: "The commission setting sheet (number Y-07) states the commission ratio for this campaign is 15 percent, effective 1 March 2025." Third: "The sample shipment sheet (number S-12) states 3 sample items were sent, the recipient is the creator's agent, the dispatch date is 2 March 2025, and the receipt status is not stated." The pending handover request sentence to be judged: "Based on the three materials above, confirm that this campaign's commission has been settled and authorize the store to pay the creator side at 15 percent." The subject, object, state, and effective scope needed for judgment follow the source text only. The source text does not state receipt or settlement facts, so "has been settled" in this request is not supported, and "authorize payment" is a business action beyond the scope of the materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation check items tied to this feature and primary task, using the sample above. The numeric value is a hypothetical starting point for this drill, with its reason and comparison object stated; it is not an official default.
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical setting for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enabled, with fields for agreement number, commission ratio, sample quantity | Collects the values the sample needs, compared field by field against the three source sentences |
| Required information check | Agreement number, commission ratio, sample quantity set as required | When any is missing, observe whether the interaction state persists; after completion, observe whether execution continues |
| User selection node | Branches for "materials complete" and "materials pending" | Executes the corresponding branch from the choice; not used as a staff directory or business data selector |
| Interaction state | Records workflow state and waits after triggering | Compared against the documented behavior; no submission count or automatic judgment setting is introduced |
| Downstream division of labour | Field validation, approval, write-back placed in later nodes or external systems | The form itself performs no approval or database write; the responsibility boundary is checked on this basis |
| Commission ratio check starting point | Hypothetical starting value 15 percent, compared with the value stated in commission setting sheet Y-07 | This starting value is a drill setting used to demonstrate same-field comparison |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as payment authorization. The sample handover request asks to "authorize the store to pay the creator side at 15 percent." The form only collects values; payment authorization needs an external system and approval implementation, and the submission action produces no authorization.
- Treating an unstated status as settled. The receipt status in sample shipment sheet S-12 is not stated, and no livestream performance report is provided. Whether the commission is settled has no basis in the materials, and settlement cannot be derived from the agreement period or the commission ratio.
- Treating a user selection branch as a business data selector. The user selection node executes a branch from the choice and carries no entity isolation or permission filtering. Selecting "materials complete" does not mean the materials passed business verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences and the pending request sentence, then compare the form field values against the source text. Agreement number H-01, commission ratio 15 percent, and sample quantity 3 match the materials, while "has been settled" and "authorize payment" in the request sentence have no corresponding basis in the source text. The satisfying observation is that the system records the filled values and retains the judgment that settlement is unsupported and payment authorization is out of scope, with no automatic payment or automatic approval appearing.
- Input a missing-field scenario: supply only the agreement number and commission ratio, leaving sample quantity unfilled. Compare whether the interaction state persists while waiting for the required item. The satisfying observation is that the interaction state continues and execution resumes after sample quantity is completed; during the missing period, no incomplete values pass downstream.
- Input the user selection branch "materials pending." Compare whether the executed path matches the choice. The satisfying observation is that the "materials pending" branch runs and the pending state is recorded; this branch produces no approval pass, settlement completion, or database write result. All of the above are paper expectations and were not actually executed.