What the documents look like
Complaints and official replies are built around formal evidence and corrective-response text rather than around repair or reshipment handling. The main sources named in the brief are the 12315 platform, platform complaint centres, customer-service chat, and order systems. The documents handled day to day are complaint tickets, regulator enquiry letters, order evidence, and corrective reports. The people involved are customer-service supervisors, legal and compliance staff, and store owners. The stated consequences of error are administrative investigation, platform penalties, and brand exposure. These facts shape workflow routing in one specific way: the routing layer has to move cross-language material and multi-source documents between collection, transfer, and checking steps, while user-interaction nodes collect information and business writes or external synchronisation remain outside the workflow unless a separate interface or downstream process is connected.
The brief also states that updates are irregular and case by case. That timing does not change what the interaction nodes do, so this page does not build any batch, full-sync, real-time, or transaction-triggered mechanism on top of it.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node is a user-interaction node. When it is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. After the user fills the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user-interaction node with the same interaction-state behaviour, and when the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. The recorded interaction state is behaviour of the interaction node itself; no separate global state-recording switch is described.
Collected information has to be passed explicitly to the later retrieval, judgement, or interface node, and output compared against input item by item. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or downstream process. Retrieval results do not constitute authorisation, and semantic recall and relevance do not perform permission or entity isolation.
Hypothetical paper exercise. A store receives a regulator enquiry letter whose text reads: "This authority received a consumer complaint on 10 March 2025 concerning order A-20250301. Please submit the corrective report and order evidence for that order within seven working days of receiving this letter." A customer-service supervisor drafts a handover request: "Please retrieve the order evidence for this order and generate the corrective report." The request states no retrieval scope, no language version, and no authorisation boundary. The form input node can collect the order number and the reply deadline, and the user selection node can confirm whether to submit the retrieval, but retrieval and report generation must be carried by later nodes.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists checks tied to this page's documents and to the hypothetical exercise. Each starting value is a hypothetical trial starting point for this exercise, not an official default.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node fields | Order number, reply deadline | The sample text contains order A-20250301 and seven working days; compare whether the fields pass to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node branch | "Yes" branch connected to the retrieval node | The document states the "yes" branch executes after a user choice; verify the branch connection item by item |
| Interaction state check | Workflow state recorded on trigger | The document states interaction nodes record state; compare conversation state before and after the trigger |
| Output handover check | Form information passed into the retrieval node | Compare the form output against the retrieval node input item by item |
| External action separation | Corrective report generation connected to a separate process | The document states writes and synchronisation need a separate interface; compare whether the node only collects information |
| Retrieval scope input | Order evidence and enquiry letter | The sample text contains order evidence and the enquiry letter; compare whether the retrieval input covers both |
Three common errors
- Treating the order number collected by the form input node as retrieval authorisation. The input is a form field; compare whether the node only collects information, and if a later node does not distinguish the authorisation boundary the check fails.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as retrieval already executed. The input is the selection result; compare the branch connection against actual execution of the retrieval node, and if the branch is not connected to the retrieval node the check fails.
- Treating retrieval output as a corrective report already generated. The input is the retrieval output; compare whether a separate report-generation process is connected, and if none is connected the check fails.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample text and the draft request, then compare whether the form input node fields contain the order number and the reply deadline. The condition is met when the fields pass to later nodes after submission.
- Input the user selection result, then compare whether the "yes" branch is connected to the retrieval node. The condition is met when the branch is connected and the retrieval node receives the form output.
- Input the retrieval output, then compare whether a separate report-generation process is connected. If none is connected, record this as an open item and do not treat the corrective report as complete.
For an empty-reference case, a clearly labelled paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design; this page does not claim that any fictional rule returns []. Where retrieval libraries use different vector models, they cannot be associated together; check the identifiers first and exclude non-matching libraries rather than running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall. Where the overall workflow diagram lists optional paths, those paths are not executed on every request: image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires a model enabled under its settings. RRF is a hybrid result fusion process and is not written here as a switch. The thinking budget is a reasoning budget and is not used as a citation token limit. Missing evidence stays missing: a pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.