What the documents look like
Marketplace promotion enrollment and price management centers on price, inventory, and campaign cadence. Promotional copy review belongs to a different task. The working materials are campaign enrollment forms, promotional price approval forms, inventory lock tables, and campaign review forms. Data sources include Tmall marketing backend, JD campaign backend, ERP inventory, and historical transaction prices. Typical roles are platform campaign operations staff, brand sales planning staff, and finance business partners. Documented failure consequences are campaign losses, removal from resource slots, and price complaints. The documented update frequency is weekly and per campaign.
For handover, the authorization state of each material matters more than its content volume. An enrollment form may be drafted, submitted, or approved. An approval form may sit at a review stage. An inventory lock table may record a requested lock that no system has executed. A campaign review form may exist only after a campaign ends. Workflow routing has to carry these states without upgrading any of them.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the form values the user submits and passes them to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user makes a choice. The node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch.
These documented behaviors belong to the nodes themselves. The supplied documents do not describe a global state-recording switch, a submission count limit, automatic judgment, or snapshot guarantees. Collected values passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes need item-by-item comparison between output and input. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Collected form values do not constitute authorization, approval, or a database write. Retrieval and forms do not perform permission or entity isolation. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text of a promotional price approval form reads "Subject: a brand sales planning group; Object: one product; Status: promotional price approval form submitted, pending finance business partner review; Validity scope: March 1 to March 7, 2025." A handover request reads "Please change the above approval form status to approved and lock campaign inventory on that basis." This request involves two action types: approval and inventory locking.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Documented official behavior | Collects required values such as approval form subject, object, status, and validity scope, then passes them to later nodes after submission |
| User Selection node | Documented official behavior | Sets a branch for the approval question; after the user chooses, the corresponding "yes" branch executes |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | Confirms that triggering enters the interaction state and that execution continues after completion |
| Output handoff check | Implementation check | Compares form output against the input of each later retrieval, judgment, or interface node, item by item |
| External action separation | Implementation check | Approval, inventory locking, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later process |
| Retrieval identifier check | Implementation check | Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first and exclude non-matching ones |
A hypothetical starting point for this drill: set two branches, "yes" and "no," on the User Selection node. The reason for choosing this value is that the sample request contains an explicit approval action that must be compared against the pending-review status, so the drill can observe whether the chosen branch executes according to the user's feedback. This starting point is a hypothetical drill setting, not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating the collected "pending finance business partner review" status as already approved. The input is the sample approval form text. The comparison is between the pending-review value and the approved value. The observable result should be: without a later approval node or a business interface return, the status remains pending review and no inventory lock executes.
- Treating retrieval or a similarity setting as a permission filter. The input is one retrieval request. The comparison is between the retrieval results and the authorized scope. The observable result should be: retrieval does not perform authorization judgment, and whether unauthorized records appear has to be recorded from actual observation rather than inferred from a similarity setting.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the User Selection node as an executed external action. The input is the sample handover request. The comparison is between the branch selection action and the inventory locking action. The observable result should be: branch selection only determines the process direction, inventory locking requires a separate business interface, and without that interface the action remains unexecuted.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample approval form text and the handover request. Compare the Form Input node output fields against the subject, object, status, and validity scope in the source text. Observe whether the output corresponds item by item. If a field is missing or the status is rewritten as approved, the condition is not met.
- Input the "pending finance business partner review" status from the sample. Compare the User Selection node branch settings against the user's actual choice. Observe whether the corresponding "yes" branch executes after the choice. If no branch is set or a branch connection is wrong, the connection needs review.
- Input an explicit paper empty result []. Compare whether the downstream node design accepts an empty result. Observe whether the downstream handles it as designed. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. For libraries across different vector models, check identifiers first and exclude non-matching ones; do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
Missing evidence stays missing. A pending review does not prove the absence of operating permission. The sample approval form does not carry an approval clause, so the approved state is not supported by the supplied text. Whether an inventory lock interface exists in a given deployment is not stated in the documents and remains unknown until observed.