What the documents look like
Permit handling sits before customs declaration and determines whether a shipment may lawfully cross the border. For this category the working documents are the automatic import licence, the dual-use item licence, the contract, and the product description. They arrive from commerce authority systems, customs commodity codes, supplier materials, and customer end-use statements. Updates are irregular and occur per shipment. That per-shipment rhythm is the only granularity the source material provides; it does not support assumptions about batch synchronisation, full synchronisation, or transaction-triggered refresh.
The task here is workflow routing for store service and internal training. In that setting the four document types are not read in isolation. Staff need to know which material sits at which stage, which action has been authorised, and which request is still waiting. The FastGPT documentation for this version describes two interaction nodes that shape that routing. The form input node enters an interaction state when triggered, records the workflow state, collects required information, and passes what the user submits to later nodes. The user selection node also enters an interaction state, records the workflow state, and executes the corresponding branch once the user makes a choice. These are documented node behaviours. They do not carry submission-count limits, automatic judgement, or snapshot guarantees.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Permit judgement depends on four kinds of information: the subject, the object, the status, and the valid scope. During a store handover, staff must separate materials that are pending review, actions that have been authorised, and requests that are still waiting. Retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorisation. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later process.
Hypothetical drill sample for checking: the source text to be compared reads, "Applicant subject: a machinery parts business in East China; permit object: automatic import licence; application status is pending review; valid scope: third quarter to fourth quarter of 2025." A draft sentence to be judged reads, "The business has obtained the automatic import licence and may arrange declaration for this shipment." The comparison sets "has obtained" in the draft against "pending review" in the source text. Both refer to the same subject, the same period, and the same status field, and the two values are mutually exclusive. The draft sentence is therefore unsupported. The handover request "please arrange declaration at the store on the basis that the licence has been obtained" is likewise unsupported, because pending review is not approval.
Two further limits follow. A relevance score returned by retrieval is not a category, entity, or permission filter, so it cannot be treated as excluding unrelated businesses or unauthorised records. Retrieval is not authorisation. The form input node collects values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronisation still need their stated downstream implementation.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Relation to the sample on this page |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enters an interaction state when triggered, collects required information, passes it to later nodes | Collects applicant subject, permit object, status, and valid scope |
| User selection node | Executes the corresponding branch once the user makes a choice | Branch options are set as pending review, approved, returned |
| Interaction state check | Recording state is behaviour of the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch is documented | Check whether the sample enters an interaction state after submission |
| Output handover check | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes | Compare each form output against the downstream input |
| External action split | Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronisation need a separate business interface or later process | The declaration arrangement in the sample is an external action and is not implemented here |
The table specifies no numbers and no default values. Required-field properties on the form are set according to business need; the source material does not provide a field list.
Three common errors
- Treating a collected "pending review" status as approval. The input is the status value submitted through the form, the comparison object is "pending review" in the source text, and the observable result is a downstream node receiving an "approved" signal. The correct handling is to pass "pending review" through unchanged rather than rewriting it.
- Treating execution of a user selection branch as business authorisation. The input is the user selecting the "approved" branch, the comparison object is the status field in the source material, and the observable result is the workflow continuing along the declaration path. Branch execution represents process direction only and does not represent completed approval.
- Treating a retrieval relevance score as a permission filter. The input is the similarity ordering returned by retrieval, the comparison object is the applicant subject's authorised scope, and the observable result is records for unrelated subjects appearing in the results. A relevance score does not perform entity separation; a separate permission check is required.
How to verify the setup
- Using the hypothetical source text "Applicant subject: a machinery parts business in East China; permit object: automatic import licence; application status is pending review; valid scope: third quarter to fourth quarter of 2025," enter the draft sentence "The business has obtained the automatic import licence and may arrange declaration for this shipment." Compare the values "has obtained" and "pending review" on the same status field. If the two are mutually exclusive, the draft sentence is unsupported and must be returned for revision. The expected observation is a result of "to be verified"; no actual test is claimed.
- Using the same hypothetical sample, check whether the downstream node receives "pending review" after the form input node is submitted. Compare the form output against the downstream input for consistency. If the downstream receives "approved," the output handover step has rewritten the value. The expected observation is that the value stays consistent.
- Check empty-result handover using an explicit paper input of an empty list, and observe whether the downstream node handles it as empty input. Do not claim that a fabricated rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty list; record only the handover behaviour actually observed. The expected observation is that the downstream follows the empty-input branch and produces no declaration action.