What the documents look like
After-sales repairs and reships aim to restore a product to use. Cases close through completed repair or a dispatched accessory, and a direct refund is not the main exit. That goal shapes the records: one work order can appear in the after-sales system, the order system, a repair site, and an accessory warehouse WMS, and each source may hold a different stage of the same case. The documents handled day to day are repair applications, reship orders, inspection reports, and accessory outbound notes. Repair applications and reship orders are produced per order; accessory outbound and stock status are summarized daily. Operating reports and exception reviews therefore ask whether one work order is consistent across sources and where in the chain an exception sits.
Two source types matter most for routing. A repair application records that a customer asked for service and carries an order identifier and a current status. An accessory outbound note records that a part left the warehouse. Neither document by itself records that a repair finished. The routing step has to keep those facts apart, because a report that treats a dispatched part as a completed repair will overstate closures and misstate the exception queue.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node is a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user fills the required information and submits, the node collects what was entered and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user-interaction node: it triggers the same interaction state, records workflow state, and after the user makes a choice it evaluates that choice and runs the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes are limited to collection and branching. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval or a submitted form does not constitute authorization to execute; operations handover must distinguish whether material is submitted, awaiting review, or already authorized.
Hypothetical drill sample. The material text reads: "Repair application WX-0417, subject a brand after-sales site, object the item under order A, application date 17 April, status awaiting review; accessory outbound note CK-0418 records that an accessory for the same order and same item has left the warehouse, dated 18 April." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This work order's repair is complete and can be closed." That sentence lacks a repair-completion record. An awaiting-review status does not constitute a completed repair, and the accessory outbound note shows only that the part was dispatched. The judgment stays unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node fields | Work order number, order number, application date, current status | Mirrors the four elements in the sample; compare each field against the material text |
| User selection branches | Two branches, repair and reship | Compare against the draft sentence to confirm no branch was executed |
| Interaction state check | Record the status after submission | Compare the status field before and after submission |
| Output handoff | Form output passed to a later judgment node | Compare output fields against input fields item by item |
| External action split | Closure and outbound sync attached to separate interfaces | Neither action has an execution record in the sample |
| Empty-result handoff | Paper input [] | Check how downstream nodes are designed to handle empty input |
Three common errors
- Reading an accessory outbound note as a completed repair. In the sample, CK-0418 states only that the accessory left the warehouse. It records no installation and no passed inspection, so a repair-completion judgment lacks evidence.
- Reading an awaiting-review status as authorization. WX-0417 carries the status awaiting review. Awaiting review does not show that operating permission is missing, and it does not equal a passed review. A handover request cannot be executed on that basis.
- Treating form collection as a business write. The form input node collects and passes information only. Order writes and status synchronization require a separate interface, and the sample contains no write record.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the draft sentence. Compare whether the draft sentence contains a repair-completion or closure statement. The result satisfies the condition when the sentence is unsupported and a pending-verification record is kept.
- Input the two documents WX-0417 and CK-0418. Compare the work order number, order number, item, and date fields to see whether they refer to the same subject in the same period. The result satisfies the condition when the fields align while the completion status remains missing.
- Input the paper empty result []. Compare whether downstream nodes are designed to accept empty input. The result satisfies the condition when downstream produces no closure action; the actual behavior remains to be observed.