What the documents look like
Operating reports and exception reviews for B2B marketplace matchmaking draw on enterprise certification materials, quotation and inquiry sheets, electronic contracts, and platform settlement statements. Compared with wholesale stall transactions, online certification and electronic contracts are more prevalent, and trading does not depend on a physical stall. When reconciling, the platform record, payment flow, and logistics trace must be aligned item by item for subject, object, and period. Update frequency is daily and per order. Reports and reviews can take data under the same document basis; this does not imply batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms.
The materials that matter most here are enterprise certification materials, which carry a certification status; electronic contracts, which carry a signing status; and quotation sheets, which carry a quotation validity period. These three fields determine whether a draft statement or handover request can be supported by the source text.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
In workflow routing, the form input node and the user selection node are both user-interaction nodes. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The form input node collects required information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The user selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The interaction state is the node's own behavior; no separate global state-recording switch is set. Collected information must be explicitly passed to subsequent retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and output must be compared item by item with input. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or subsequent flow. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical exercise sample: the source text reads, "Enterprise A's certification materials state a unified social credit code and the name of the legal representative; the certification status is pending review. The quotation sheet states the quotation validity period ends June 30, 2025. The electronic contract is in a pending-signature state." The draft sentence to be judged is: "Enterprise A has completed certification, the contract has taken effect, and supply can be arranged according to the quotation validity period." This sentence treats pending review as completed certification, treats pending signature as an effective contract, and treats the quotation validity period as a supply deadline. None of the three is supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting on this page | Verification method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect certification status, contract status, and quotation validity period fields | After submission, compare field values with the source text |
| User selection node | Set a "materials complete" branch | Verify the "yes" branch connection one by one |
| Interaction state check | Enter interaction state and record workflow state after triggering | Observe whether the conversation enters the interaction state |
| Output handoff | Pass form information to a subsequent judgment node | Compare output with input item by item |
| Empty-result handoff | Use paper input [] to check downstream design | Record actual observation; do not presuppose a return result |
| External operation division | Order writes connect to a separate business interface | Check whether the interface is implemented separately |
The "materials complete" branch is the hypothetical starting point for this exercise. It is selected because this branch directly determines whether the flow proceeds to review, and the comparison object is the status fields listed in the source text.
Three common errors
- Reading "certification status is pending review" as completed certification. The input is the source text, the comparison object is the certification status field, and the observed result is that the draft sentence and the source value do not agree.
- Reading "electronic contract is in a pending-signature state" as an effective contract. Signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts and must be checked separately.
- Reading "quotation validity period ends June 30, 2025" as a supply deadline. The quotation validity period does not indicate a supply deadline; the comparison object is two different fields.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence "Enterprise A has completed certification," input the certification status field from the source text, compare whether the values agree, and if the source says pending review, judge the statement unsupported.
- For the draft sentence "the contract has taken effect," input the electronic contract status field, compare whether signing and effectiveness are the same fact, and if only a pending-signature record exists, record the evidence gap.
- For the draft sentence "supply can be arranged according to the quotation validity period," input the quotation validity period field, compare whether it and the supply deadline are the same field, and if they differ, judge the inference unsupported.
These checks use the hypothetical source text, draft sentence, and request given above. They state what to input, what to compare, and what observation would satisfy the condition. They do not claim that any test has been run, that approval has been granted, or that any business action has occurred. Where the source text does not state a value, the field remains unknown.