What the documents look like
Livestream after-sales work arrives in bursts after a single sales session, and refund and reshipment requests correlate strongly with what the host promised on air. The materials this page covers are livestream order lists, refund applications, reshipment orders and script templates. They come from shop after-sales records, customer service IM, warehouse WMS and logistics tracking. In cross-border settings these materials frequently contain multilingual content, so each handover requires confirming the subject, the order number, the status and the valid scope document by document. The update rhythm is after each session and daily. This page does not infer batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms from that rhythm.
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 after the user fills the required information and submits, the collected form information is passed to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and when the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The interaction state and the state record are documented behaviors of these two nodes. The documents do not describe a global state switch, a submission-count limit or an automatic snapshot guarantee. Relevance scores from retrieval do not carry permission or entity-isolation duties, and retrieval itself does not constitute authorization. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: one livestream order list states "Order number A-2601, buyer applied for refund, status pending review, submission date 2025-03-11, promised one reshipment." A proposed reply sentence reads "The refund has been approved and the reshipment order has been generated." That proposed sentence is the item to be judged.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting on this page | Verification method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect order number, refund status and promise content | After submission, compare the output against the input fields |
| User Selection node | Set a "yes" branch to carry the confirmation action | Verify the branch connection item by item |
| Retrieval input | Use the sample order number and status term | Observe whether returned entries contain that order |
| Output handover | Pass collected information to a later retrieval node | Compare the downstream input against the node output |
| External action split | Writes and synchronization attach to a separate business interface | Confirm this page declares no write execution |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Retrieval return-count starting point set to 5 entries | Compare against the actual hit count for the sample order |
The hypothetical trial starting point of 5 entries is chosen to make empty results and hit differences easy to observe. It is a setting for this exercise, not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating the proposed sentence "the refund has been approved" as a verified fact. The source text states the status field as "pending review." Both statements share the same subject and the same field with mutually exclusive values, so the proposed sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization to execute. A returned entry indicates a match only. Refund approval and reshipment generation require a downstream interface or manual approval, and this page declares no execution.
- Performing a joint association across different vector-model libraries. The documents do not describe cross-model joint association. Confirm identifiers first and exclude non-matching entries, record the actual observation, and do not infer missed recalls or redundant results.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the proposed sentence, then compare the source status field "pending review" against the proposed sentence's "approved." If the same subject and same field hold mutually exclusive values, the proposed sentence is judged unsupported.
- Input the sample order number into retrieval and observe whether returned entries contain that order. If the return is empty, use the paper input
[]to check the downstream design. Do not claim that a fictional rule must return empty. - Input the User Selection node's "yes" branch and compare the branch connection against the selection result. If the corresponding branch executes after the selection and the state record is retained, the documented behavior is satisfied. A pending-review status does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission; signing, cooperation being reached and a contract taking effect are three distinct facts, and the evidence gap remains.