What the documents look like
This category covers work on complaint tickets, regulatory inquiry letters, order evidence and rectification reports. The counterparties are platforms or regulators rather than repair and reshipment customers, so the outward documents need formal evidence and formal corrective wording. Errors carry administrative investigation, platform penalty and brand exposure. The supplied brief gives an update frequency of irregular, per case. The three most time-consuming steps are reconstructing the transaction, preparing the evidence package and submitting the corrective reply.
Those facts shape workflow routing. Each case is handled as its own set of materials, and the interaction nodes sit at the point where a person must supply facts or make a decision before the flow continues. 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 finishes the interaction. The User Selection node behaves the same way at trigger time, and when the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and runs the "yes" branch. The recorded interaction state is a behavior of the interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is described.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Form Input collects required information and passes what the user submitted to later nodes. User Selection routes on the user's choice and runs the "yes" branch. Whatever is collected must be handed explicitly to the following retrieval, judgment or interface node, and output must be compared item by item against input. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization need a separate business interface or downstream flow; the form and the retrieval step are not authorization to execute them. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; check the identifier and exclude the non-matching library.
Hypothetical paper exercise, not a real record. Source text one: "A shop received a platform-transferred complaint ticket on 10 March 2025; the ticket states that the complaint object is the refund handling of Order A, and the current status is pending verification by the customer service supervisor." Source text two: "On 12 March 2025 a regulatory inquiry letter required the shop to submit a written explanation of the refund handling of Order A; the letter states no submission deadline." Proposed draft sentence for review: "The shop has completed rectification for Order A and obtained regulatory acceptance." Determination: the materials show only a ticket pending verification and a letter requiring an explanation, with no completed rectification and no regulatory acceptance; the draft sentence is not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below relates only to this page's documents and primary task. Where a starting value is needed it is a paper comparison point for this exercise, not an official default.
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | On trigger, enters interaction state, collects required information, passes the submission to later nodes | Collects the complaint facts and evidence list for Order A |
| User Selection node | After the user chooses, runs the "yes" branch; verify each branch connection | Splits between "supplement evidence" and "submit explanation" |
| Interaction state check | Recorded state is interaction-node behavior; no separate global state switch | Checks whether the pending-verification status is carried through faithfully |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information explicitly to the later retrieval, judgment or interface node | Checks whether the letter's requirement reaches the rectification report node |
| External action split | Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization attach to a separate business interface | Submitting the regulatory reply is not completed automatically by the form node |
| Retrieval scope check | Verify the vector model identifier; libraries on different models are not associated together | Confirms order evidence and complaint ticket sit in one associable scope |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as authorized execution. In the sample the ticket status is pending verification by the customer service supervisor. A collected evidence list means information was collected; it does not mean verification finished or a rectification was submitted.
- Treating a User Selection branch as a business conclusion. Choosing "submit explanation" only runs that branch. Whether the regulator accepts it or approves the rectification is a downstream fact the materials do not state.
- Treating retrieval relevance as permission or entity filtering. Semantic recall does not perform permission isolation, and a high relevance score does not mean the record belongs to this shop or this ticket.
How to verify the setup
- Input source text one and the draft sentence "The shop has completed rectification for Order A and obtained regulatory acceptance." Compare the draft against the source: the source states only a ticket pending verification and a letter requiring an explanation, with no completed rectification and no regulatory acceptance. The condition is met when the draft is judged not supported and the evidence gap is recorded.
- Input source text two and the handoff request "Write the letter's requirement directly into the rectification report and mark it as submitted." Compare the request against the source: the source states no submission deadline and no submitted status. The condition is met when the submission status is kept unknown and no submitted marker is produced.
- Input a request to associate libraries built on different vector models. Compare the vector model identifiers of each library, exclude the non-matching one, and do not run a cross-model retrieval comparison. The condition is met when the observed identifier difference is recorded and the missing recall conclusion remains unknown.
A paper empty-result handoff can be checked with an explicit input of []. Pass the empty array to the downstream node and observe whether the downstream follows its no-record branch; do not claim that a fabricated rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Image retrieval needs a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking needs a model enabled under its settings. Optional paths listed in the overall document flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them.