What the documents look like
Marketplace advertising in this category adjusts bids against traffic and conversion on a running basis. Platform promotion enrollment depends mainly on campaign review, so the two workflows do not share a review rhythm. The data sources named for this category are Juliang Qianchuan, JD Kuaiche, Alimama, and store transaction data. Daily documents include delivery plans, keyword reports, audience package descriptions, and conversion attribution tables. Update frequency is daily or hourly, which means operating reports and exception reviews handle bid, spend, and conversion records that move within the same day.
For workflow routing, the practical material is a set of documents in different states. A delivery plan carries bid adjustment records. A keyword report carries click and conversion figures. An audience package description carries targeting conditions. A conversion attribution table carries an attribution basis. Routing has to keep track of which materials have been submitted, which requests are still pending review, and which actions require a human confirmation before the next step. Retrieval and forms collect and pass information. They do not authorize execution.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects required information and passes the submitted values to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node with the same interaction-state behavior. After the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch.
These are existing node behaviors. No separate global state-recording switch is set here. Interaction state, waiting for user submission, and hiding the dialog follow the documented descriptions. No control switch, submission count, automatic judgment, or snapshot guarantee is invented for them. Collected information must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs must be compared against inputs item by item. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. The form itself does not perform those actions.
Where retrieval libraries use the same vector model, they can be associated together. Libraries on different vector models cannot be associated together. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation. Retrieval is not authorization. An empty-result handoff can be checked against downstream design using an explicit paper input. The optional paths shown in the overall workflow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below concerns one hypothetical drill sample on this page. It lists only documented settings or implementation checks tied to this feature and the operating review task. Where a value appears, it is a starting point for this hypothetical exercise.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Check method and basis |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect three required fields: delivery plan number, report period, attribution basis | After submission, compare the fields received by later nodes for completeness |
| User Selection node | Set two branches: "continue review" and "return for supplement" | After the user chooses, check whether the corresponding "yes" branch executes |
| Interaction state recording | The node enters interaction state when triggered | Confirm the state-recording behavior as documented; no separate switch is set |
| Output handoff | Pass collected information to a later retrieval or judgment node | Compare each input field against the field received downstream |
| Retrieval library association | Associate only libraries on the same vector model | Check the model identifier first and exclude libraries on a different model |
| External action split | Order writing, document backfill, and external sync connect to a separate interface | Confirm the form does not carry those business actions |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as authorized execution. The Form Input node collects required information and passes it to later nodes. The submission action itself does not constitute approval or a write. Suppose a draft sentence reads, "After submission, the delivery plan change is complete." The input is the form submission record. The comparison object is whether the change actually occurred. The observed result is that the change request remains pending review. That sentence is not supported.
- Treating a retrieval result as a permission filter. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation. Suppose a draft sentence reads, "A retrieval hit means this audience package is authorized for use." The input is the retrieval return record. The comparison object is the authorization status field. The observed result is that the authorization field is missing or pending review. That sentence is not supported.
- Associating libraries across different vector models. Libraries on different vector models cannot be associated together. Suppose a draft sentence reads, "After two libraries on different models are associated, missed recall decreases." The input is the model identifier of each library. The comparison object is whether the identifiers match. The observed result is that the identifiers differ, so the association does not hold and the draft sentence is not supported.
How to verify the setup
The verification below uses a hypothetical drill sample. The sample material text reads: "Delivery plan number T-2024-017, report period June 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024, attribution basis last click. The plan is currently pending review. A bid adjustment request has been submitted but not approved." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "This delivery plan has completed its bid adjustment and can proceed to report review."
- Verification one: check the subject and status in the draft sentence. The input is the sample material text above. The comparison is between the draft phrase "has completed its bid adjustment" and the source phrase "submitted but not approved." The observed result is a status mismatch, so the draft sentence is not supported. Pending review does not show a lack of operating permission, and it does not equal completion.
- Verification two: check the form output handoff. The input is the three fields collected by the Form Input node: delivery plan number, report period, and attribution basis. The comparison is against the fields actually received by the downstream node. The observed result is that all three fields are passed completely, which satisfies the condition. If the attribution basis is missing, the condition is not satisfied.
- Verification three: check the retrieval library association identifiers. The input is the vector model identifier of each library proposed for association. The comparison is whether the two identifiers match. The observed result is that matching identifiers allow association together, while differing identifiers exclude that library. Record the actual observation. No cross-model retrieval is run to compare missed recall.
All three verifications are paper checks and were not actually executed. No claim is made that testing or deployment occurred. Missing evidence remains missing, and pending status remains pending.
This page addresses one scope: marketplace advertising and on-site traffic, operating reports and exception reviews, workflow routing. During an operations handoff, the state of materials, actions, and requests must be distinguished from authorization. Retrieval and forms are not authorization to execute.