What the documents look like
Brand dealer ordering events serve offline dealer reservations and do not directly manage platform stores. The data sources are the ordering event system, historical sales, dealer inventory and financial credit. The operating review and exception review documents are the ordering handbook, the ordering contract, the sample list and the credit approval.
These materials carry different things. The ordering handbook states policy. The ordering contract records a contractual relationship. The sample list defines the sample scope. The credit approval records an authorization state. Field definitions are not uniform across these documents.
This page addresses only workflow routing inside operating review and exception review. The Form Input node collects required information and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node judges the user's choice and executes the branch that follows. Both nodes trigger the interaction state and record workflow state. The boundary of this arrangement is that retrieval and forms collect information, while authorization execution requires a separate business interface or a later process.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Ordering event materials follow a quarterly or annual cycle. A single interaction may collect fields that span a long period. The same dealer may hold different states in different documents covering the same period. The workflow must align subject, object, state and effective scope item by item before any exception judgment.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source material reads: "Regional dealer A submitted a draft ordering contract, contract number H-2026-031, signing state pending review, covering the 2026 spring ordering event. Ordering handbook V3 states that this dealer's credit limit is 2,000,000 CNY. The credit approval form has not been submitted." The proposed judgment sentence is: "This dealer has completed credit approval and may execute the ordering amount." The request to be judged is: "Please confirm whether A may execute an order of 2,000,000 CNY."
In this sample the contract is pending review and the credit approval form has not been submitted. The proposed judgment sentence writes an unsubmitted item as completed, which is unsupported. The workflow routing must carry "pending review," "not submitted" and "completed" as separate field values. A retrieval result cannot directly produce an authorization conclusion.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Use on this page | Verification method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect dealer subject, contract number, period and credit approval form state | After submission, compare each form field against the sample source text |
| User Selection node | In the exception branch, a person selects "pending verification" or "verified" | Check that the selected result matches the connected branch |
| Interaction state recording | The node enters the interaction state and records workflow state after triggering | Observe the conversation entering the interaction state and confirm later nodes receive it |
| Output handoff | Pass collected information to a later judgment or interface node | Compare upstream output fields with downstream input fields |
| External operation separation | Contract signing, credit approval and order writing connect to separate business interfaces | Confirm this page does not treat form submission as completed approval |
Hypothetical trial starting point: set the form required fields to four items (subject, contract number, period, approval state). The reason for this choice is that the sample needs exactly these four items to align subject and period. The comparison method is to check each item against the sample source text; a missing item is recorded as pending verification. This starting point is a setting for this hypothetical trial and is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating a contract pending review as an effective contract. The input is "signing state pending review" from the sample. The comparison object is "completed credit approval." The observable result is that the two field values do not match, and the judgment is unsupported.
- Treating form submission as completed credit approval. The input is the approval state field collected by the form. The comparison object is whether the credit approval form has been submitted. The observable result is that form submission produces no approval form record, and the judgment requires a separate business interface.
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization basis. The input is the ordering handbook excerpt returned by retrieval. The comparison object is the credit approval form state in the sample. The observable result is that a stated credit limit in the handbook does not equal completed approval, and retrieval is not responsible for authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Use the sample source text "contract number H-2026-031, signing state pending review" and the proposed judgment sentence "has completed credit approval." After submission in the Form Input node, compare the approval state field. If the field remains not submitted, the workflow must not output an executable conclusion, and the result is recorded as pending verification.
- Use the sample request "Please confirm whether A may execute an order of 2,000,000 CNY." In the User Selection node, select the "pending verification" branch. Compare the selected branch with the credit approval form state in the sample. If the branch is not connected to an approval interface, the output remains pending verification and does not claim execution.
- Use the paper input
[]to check empty-result handoff. Compare whether the downstream design gives a pending-verification notice for an empty result. If the downstream directly outputs an executable conclusion, record it as a configuration gap. This check does not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty result.
The checks above are paper exercises. No deployment, approval submission or order writing was performed. The missing approval form, signing record and authorization scope remain missing and are recorded as evidence gaps.