What the documents look like
Daily operations for a Tmall flagship store revolve around four document families: product publication pages, brand authorization letters, delivery commitment records, and after-sales tickets. A brand authorization letter states the authorizing party, the authorized entity, the authorized product scope, and the validity period. These fields determine who may act on behalf of the brand for publication, price changes, or after-sales handling. Delivery commitment records update per order and capture the committed time limit alongside the actual dispatch milestone. After-sales tickets carry the handling status of return, exchange, and compensation requests.
The shared trait across these materials is that subject, object, status, and effective scope must be readable at the same time. An authorization letter that names only the authorizing and authorized parties, without a product scope, cannot support a judgment about whether a specific product publication falls inside the authorization. A delivery commitment record that shows only a committed time, without order attribution, cannot be matched to a specific handover request. Operations update daily and per order, so handover actions need a checkable correspondence across these materials.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Workflow routing in operations permission and handover management carries the responsibility of linking materials and requests into a checkable path. When a form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user fills required information and submits, the node passes that information to subsequent nodes. A user selection node also enters an interaction state, and after the user makes a choice, it executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both node behaviors are collection and branch judgment. Neither constitutes authorization approval, order writing, or external status synchronization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material text reads "Authorizing party A authorizes B to sell Category A products in the Tmall flagship store, authorization valid until December 31, 2025"; "the delivery commitment record shows order number T001 was committed for dispatch within 48 hours, and the actual dispatch time was 72 hours after order placement"; "after-sales ticket W001 has status pending review." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "B has the right to publish Category A products before December 31, 2025, and the delayed delivery compensation for T001 has been completed automatically by the system."
This draft sentence contains two items requiring verification. The authorization scope and validity period have corresponding fields in the material, so subject, product scope, and date can be compared. Whether delayed delivery compensation was completed automatically is not supported: the material shows only that the actual dispatch time was later than the committed time, and does not state a compensation execution status. Workflow routing can design a form input to collect the handover request and a user selection to judge branches. Compensation execution requires a separate business interface or downstream process. Retrieval and forms do not perform authorization execution.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | After triggering, enters interaction state, collects required information, passes it to subsequent nodes after submission | Collects subject, product scope, and order number from the handover request |
| User selection node | After the user makes a choice, executes the corresponding "yes" branch | Sets separate branches for authorization validity and compensation status |
| Interaction state check | State recording is a behavior of interaction nodes; no separate global state switch is set | Confirms the handover request continues execution after entering interaction state |
| Output handoff check | Explicitly passes collected information to subsequent retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes | Compares form output against authorization letter and delivery record fields |
| External operation division | Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface | Compensation execution is not placed inside form or selection nodes |
| Hypothetical exercise starting point | This hypothetical exercise sets the authorization validity comparison starting point at December 31, 2025 | Reason for selection is the end date stated in the sample authorization letter, compared with the draft sentence date |
Three common errors
- Treating a handover request collected by form input as authorization already approved. Input is a collection action; authorization status requires comparison against the brand authorization letter's subject, product scope, and validity period. In the sample, B's authorized scope is Category A products. If the draft sentence extends to products outside Category A, there is no corresponding field support.
- Treating the "yes" branch of a user selection node as compensation already executed. Branch judgment only decides the process direction; compensation execution requires a business interface. In the sample, T001's actual dispatch time was later than the committed time, and the material does not state a compensation status. The draft sentence's claim of automatic completion is unsupported.
- Treating retrieval results as a permission isolation mechanism. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not handle permission or entity isolation, and libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together. If the authorization letter and delivery record in the sample come from different model libraries, identifiers must first be checked and non-matching items excluded. Record actual observations rather than running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source material and draft sentence, and compare the authorization letter's subject, product scope, and validity period fields against the draft sentence's claims. Expected phenomenon: when all three fields correspond, the authorization scope portion is supported. In the sample, the validity period ending December 31, 2025 matches the draft sentence date, and the product scope is Category A. If the draft sentence is limited to Category A, that item is supported.
- Input the sample delivery commitment record and the draft sentence's compensation claim, and compare order number T001's committed time, actual dispatch time, and compensation execution field. Expected phenomenon: when the material states a compensation execution status, that item is supported. The sample states only that the actual dispatch time was later than the committed time; the compensation execution field is missing, so that item remains pending verification.
- Input sample after-sales ticket W001 and the handover request, and compare the ticket status field against the request's claim about completed handling. Expected phenomenon: when the ticket status is pending review, the completed-handling claim is unsupported. Pending review does not demonstrate absence of operating permission, and does not constitute completed handling. If the material does not state a review result, record the evidence gap.