What the documents look like
Channel diversion auditing covers regional and price order. It does not cover rebate amounts, which belong to a separate settlement process. The working materials for this category come from four sources: an anti-counterfeit code system, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. The recurring documents are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs. Updates arrive weekly and at irregular intervals.
For operating reports and exception reviews, the inputs are the diversion complaint form, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs. Anti-counterfeit code records supply code and region information. E-commerce platform prices supply low-price store leads. Distributor shipment records supply flow-direction evidence. How these materials are used at the tool-call and plugin step depends on how tool introductions and tool parameters are configured. A complaint form records who is complained about and which code range is involved. It does not by itself confirm that diversion occurred. An investigation photograph can show that a packaging batch number matches a shipment batch. That match is a related-stage observation, not a confirmation by an authorized body. A penalty notice in draft has not been signed or issued.
Constraints at the tool calls step
Tool calling lets the model decide from context semantics whether to invoke a tool. The tool introduction states what the tool does. The parameter introduction and the whether-required flag together shape the call decision. System module parameters are fixed. Plugin parameters are configurable. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the introduction can be edited to make the call timing more precise. The documentation advises starting with a small number of tools, tuning them, and only then adding more. The tool call termination node ends the current call: no further tools are called, and the AI does not summarize tool results. Custom variables extend tool variable input for nodes not treated as tool parameters or not callable as tools.
Several boundaries matter here. A tool introduction describes purpose and input conditions. It does not guarantee execution. When a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may not call the tool; prompt wording can guide the user to supply the parameter. When a tool has no required parameters, the model may still fabricate a parameter. Retrieval is not authorization. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Same-model retrieval association is required; libraries using different vector models cannot be jointly associated. An empty retrieval result can be checked against an explicit paper input of an empty list, without asserting that a fictional rule search returns empty.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample
Material text for review: A brand channel control department received a diversion complaint form on 10 June 2025. The complaint names East China distributor A and covers anti-counterfeit code range 3100 to 3150. The complaint content states that A supplied goods at low price into the South China region. Investigation photographs show a packaging batch number consistent with shipment record batch 20250601. The penalty notice is at drafting stage and has not been issued.
Draft sentence to assess: This complaint form confirms that distributor A engaged in cross-region diversion, and the penalty notice has taken effect.
The draft sentence treats the complaint form and investigation photographs as grounds for a diversion fact, and describes a drafted penalty notice as already effective. The material text does not state the issuance status of the penalty notice, and does not state that an authorized body has confirmed diversion. Assessment requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The complaint form and photographs are related-stage evidence. Draft status and effective status are different facts.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | How it is set | Check action |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State tool purpose and input conditions | Check whether the introduction states when the tool should not be called |
| Tool parameters | System module parameters fixed; plugin parameters configurable | Verify parameter introduction and whether-required flag |
| Required parameters | Model may not call when no suitable required parameter exists | Complete through interaction and check the actual request |
| Tool connection | In advanced orchestration, connect available tools to the tool call module | Start with a small number of tools for tuning |
| Tool call termination | Attach after a tool to end the current call | Confirm no further tools and no AI summary |
| Custom variables | Extend tool variable input | Fill in parameter descriptions and check the called node |
Hypothetical starting point for this exercise: connect a diversion complaint form query tool and an anti-counterfeit code record query tool to the tool call module. The reason for choosing two tools is that the sample involves two inputs, a complaint form and a code range. The comparison object is the call record from a run without connected tools. This starting point is a setting for this hypothetical exercise, not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating the complaint form and investigation photographs as confirmation of diversion. In the sample, the complaint form states the complained party and the code range, and the photographs show a consistent batch number. Neither material states that an authorized body confirmed diversion. Input: the complaint form and photographs. Comparison: the issuance status of the penalty notice. Observable result: the penalty notice is at drafting stage.
- Describing a drafted penalty notice as already effective. In the sample, the penalty notice is at drafting stage and has not been issued. Input: the penalty notice text. Comparison: the issuance record. Observable result: no issuance field is stated. Pending review does not indicate a lack of operating authority, and draft status does not indicate that a penalty has taken effect.
- Treating the purpose description in a tool introduction as a guarantee of execution. The tool introduction tells the model what the tool does. The parameter introduction and whether-required flag shape the call decision. Input: the tool introduction text. Comparison: the actual request parameters. Observable result: whether the model declines to call the tool when a required parameter is missing.
How to verify the setup
- Input the diversion complaint form text and the draft sentence from the sample. Compare the diversion confirmation and penalty-effectiveness wording in the draft sentence against the stated complained party, code range, photograph batch number, and penalty notice draft status in the source text. Observable result: the draft sentence exceeds what the source text states, and is assessed as unsupported.
- Input the drafted penalty notice text from the sample. Compare the issuance field in the text against the effectiveness wording. Observable result: no issuance date and no issuing party are stated, and the item is assessed as pending verification. Do not supply authorization or effectiveness clauses to reach a definite answer.
- Input the tool connection configuration and tool introductions from the sample. Compare whether the introductions state input conditions and cases where the tool should not be called, and compare the required parameter settings against the actual request. Observable result: whether the model declines to call the tool when a required parameter is missing. For an empty retrieval result, check downstream design against an explicit paper input of an empty list, without asserting that a fictional rule search necessarily returns an empty list.