What the documents look like
Brand after-sales repair work centres on warranty responsibility and physical repair outlets. The documents in scope are the warranty card, the repair work order, the inspection report and the replacement approval. These four materials together indicate what authorization state a repair currently sits in. The warranty card states the warranty scope and validity period. The repair work order records intake and the repair process. The inspection report gives the fault determination. The replacement approval carries the approval opinion. The subject, object, state and valid range of each material need to be aligned case by case.
After-sales systems, store orders and repair outlet feedback update per order and per day. During operations handover, the same repair order moves between store customer service and the repair outlet, and materials sit at different stages such as intake, inspection, pending approval and approved. Workflow routing needs to treat material state and operating permission as separate matters. A material being retrieved means the material exists within an accessible range. An operation request being submitted means someone proposed an action. Neither of these equals completed authorization.
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. It 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 and state recording behaviour. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding branch. These nodes collect values. Business verification, approval, database writes and external state synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process.
Retrieval and forms do not carry authorization judgement. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. The requirement that a retrieval library use the same vector model cannot be extended to mean that other external systems must also use the same model. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; the practical step is to check identifiers first, exclude non-matching items and record what is actually observed. An empty-result handoff can be checked against a clear paper input to verify downstream design; it cannot be claimed that a given retrieval will necessarily return empty.
Hypothetical drill sample: the material text reads "Warranty card number BX-2024-0317, product model M-200, purchase date 10 March 2024, warranty period 12 months, fault description will not power on, intake store Chengdong store, intake date 2 April 2025." The draft sentence to be judged is "This order is beyond the warranty period, so the replacement approval can be passed directly." Check points: the purchase date and intake date differ by more than 12 months, and the validity period stated on the warranty card must be compared with the intake date on the same subject and same field. Whether the replacement approval passes is not stated in the sample, and the approval opinion and authorization boundary are absent, so that part remains unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Check point on this page |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | User interaction node | Enters interaction state on trigger, collects required information and passes it to later nodes |
| User Selection node | User interaction node | Executes the corresponding branch after the user makes a choice; verify branch connections one by one |
| Interaction state recording | Node behaviour | Interaction nodes record workflow state; no separate global state recording switch is set |
| Output handoff | Node connection | Collected information is passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes; compare each output against its input |
| External operation division | Implementation check item | Order writes, document backfill and external state synchronization require a separate business interface or later process |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Hypothetical starting point for this page | Use the 12-month warranty period in the sample as the comparison basis against the intake date, because the source text states that period |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as completed authorization. In the sample, the warranty card being retrieved only shows the material is within an accessible range. If the draft sentence uses that to conclude the replacement approval can be executed, the input is the retrieval result, the comparison object is the approval opinion field, and the observable result is that the approval opinion is missing, which should be recorded as pending verification.
- Treating a form submission as approval. The Form Input node collects required information and passes it to later nodes; the submission action itself does not produce an approval conclusion. The input is the form value, the comparison object is the approval status, and the observable result is that the approval status is not stated, so the evidence gap is preserved.
- Treating pending review as lacking operating permission. In the sample, the replacement approval being at the pending approval stage only means the approval opinion has not been given. The input is the approval stage field, the comparison object is the authorization boundary, and the observable result is that neither is stated, so a negative conclusion cannot be drawn.
How to verify the setup
- Take the sample material text and the draft sentence. The input is purchase date 10 March 2024, intake date 2 April 2025 and warranty period 12 months. The comparison object is the date difference and the warranty period on the same subject and same field. The observable result is that when the date difference exceeds 12 months, the "beyond the warranty period" part of the draft sentence is supported, while the replacement approval part remains unsupported.
- Take the branch connections of the User Selection node. The input is the selection options in the sample. The comparison object is the "yes" branch and its connection to later nodes. The observable result is that after a choice only the corresponding branch executes and other branches do not; record the actual observation rather than guaranteeing a first match.
- Take the output handoff of the Form Input node. The input is the required information collected in the sample. The comparison object is the input parameters of the later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes. The observable result is that output and input match item by item, while business verification and approval actions are still implemented downstream; when no interface is connected, record this as a gap.