What the documents look like
Trade settlement and foreign-exchange collection work centres on the authenticity of FX funds and the underlying trade background. This differs from letter-of-credit document examination, which reviews a full document set. Here the working materials are collection advices, trade contracts, invoices and FX business registration records. Two update rhythms coexist: per transaction and monthly. The reconciliation result of a single collection affects how the monthly operating report frames its exception review. The settlement counterparty, amount, currency and registration status in these records form the main field sources for downstream routing.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When a Form Input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, required information is collected, and the submitted values are passed to later nodes. A User Selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The collected values complete collection only. Business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval or form results do not constitute authorised execution.
Hypothetical drill sample. The source text reads: "A domestic foreign-trade enterprise received USD 180,000 in goods payment from an overseas buyer on 10 March 2025, corresponding to contract number HX-2025-03; the invoice amount matches the collection amount; the FX business registration status is registered." The proposed handover request reads: "Mark this collection as verified and write it into the current month's operating report." The counterparty, object, status and validity scope in this request all appear in the source text, but the source text does not state the verifier's authorisation boundary. The marking action remains a matter to be confirmed.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Documented | Enters an interactive state when triggered, collects required information, and passes it to later nodes after submission |
| User Selection node | Documented | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice; verify each branch connection individually |
| Interactive state check | Implementation check | The recorded state is behaviour of the interactive node; no separate global state-recording switch is set or claimed |
| Output handover check | Implementation check | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes, and compare each output against its input |
| External action separation | Implementation check | Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or later process |
| Hypothetical starting value | Hypothetical trial starting point for this page | Set the operating-report exception threshold starting point to 1 transaction, chosen to allow transaction-by-transaction comparison; compare against the number of registered collections in the current month and observe whether review is triggered |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as completed business verification. Submission completes information collection only; verification requires a separate judgement or manual step. Input: the proposed handover request in the sample. Comparison: whether the source text states a verification authorisation. Observable result: the request remains pending confirmation.
- Treating execution of a User Selection branch as approval. Branch execution indicates process direction only. Input: the registration status field in the sample. Comparison: whether an approval record exists. Observable result: the approval fact is not supported.
- Treating a retrieval result as a permission filter. Relevance does not carry entity or permission isolation. Input: the sample collection record. Comparison: whether an authorisation marker appears. Observable result: retrieval does not change the authorisation state.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the proposed handover request. Compare the "verified" wording in the request against the authorisation field in the source text. The expected result is that this wording is not supported, and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Input the sample registration status "registered". Compare whether it and "verified" are mutually exclusive values of the same field. The expected result is that they are different facts and cannot substitute for each other.
- Input an explicit paper-based empty result []. Check whether the downstream handover design can still enter a manual review branch. The expected result is that an empty result does not automatically trigger a write or synchronisation action.