What the documents look like
Multi-store matrix management for platform e-commerce handles cross-store authorization and price order. The working materials come from platform merchant backends, ERP channel prices, brand anti-counterfeiting systems, and distributor reports. Day-to-day documents include store authorization lists, price control tables, cross-territory complaint forms, and monthly sales reports. These materials update daily and monthly.
The documents serve different purposes. A store authorization list records who may operate which store within what scope. A price control table records agreed prices per store. A cross-territory complaint form records suspected out-of-bound sales leads. A monthly sales report records period sales results. These documents come from separate sources, and their field definitions may not align.
Workflow routing must pass information collected at interaction nodes accurately to downstream nodes. The nodes themselves do not complete authorization decisions, price approvals, or database writes.
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 after the user fills required information and submits, the node collects the form information and passes it to subsequent nodes.
The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a selection, the node evaluates the selection and executes the corresponding branch. The documented basic use is to pose a question requiring a choice, then design different workflow paths based on the user's feedback.
Both nodes can be added repeatedly and trigger execution. The interaction state and state recording are node behaviors. The documents do not describe a global state-recording switch. Collected information must be explicitly passed to subsequent retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs compared item by item against inputs. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or subsequent process. Retrieval and relevance scoring do not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval results do not constitute authorization.
Hypothetical drill sample: A brand channel operator writes in a handover record, "Store authorization list item 12: the entity is East China distributor A, the authorized store is platform store S-101, the authorization scope is daily operations, and the validity period is January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025." A separate price control table states, "Store S-101, period March 2025, minimum selling price 100 yuan." A draft handover request reads: "Please hand over operations authority for store S-101 to distributor B, handover date April 1, 2025, based on the takeover application submitted by distributor B." This request is not accompanied by an authorization list change record or confirmation material from the original authorizing party, so it is a pending verification matter.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Relation to this page's sample | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node collected fields | Collects entity, store, date, and basis from the handover request | Compare field by field against the sample text; record missing fields as gaps |
| User Selection node branches | Makes a selection on whether a change basis exists and follows the corresponding branch | Inspect branch connections and confirm the selection result maps to the subsequent node |
| Interaction state recording | After the node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded | Observe the state after the node triggers; do not assume an additional switch exists |
| Output handoff | Passes collected information to a subsequent retrieval or judgment node | Compare node output against input fields item by item for consistency |
| External operation division | Authority change writes and external synchronization | Confirm whether a separate business interface is connected; if not, record as pending implementation |
| Hypothetical trial starting value | This page's sample uses January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 as the authorization validity period | Compare with the handover request date of April 1, 2025; the starting value is chosen to give a bounded period against which the request date can be compared |
Three common errors
- Treating a handover request collected by the Form Input node as an already-authorized authority change. In the sample, distributor B submits a takeover application; the application itself does not constitute an authorization list change, and confirmation material from the original authorizing party is missing. Check method: input the sample text and the draft request, compare the entity in authorization list item 12 with the entity in the request, and observe whether they are the same entity; when the entities differ, record as pending verification and do not judge the handover as completed.
- Treating a User Selection node branch choice as a business approval result. The User Selection node executing the "yes" branch only indicates the selection result; the documents do not state that this node completes an approval. Check method: input the selection result and the subsequent node connection, compare branch execution against whether approval material exists, and observe whether an approval record is present; when no approval record exists, record as a gap.
- Treating retrieval or a relevance score as a permission filter. Retrieval results do not perform entity isolation. Check method: input the retrieval query and the target store identifier, compare whether returned content includes store records other than S-101, and observe the scope of returned results; when unrelated records are returned, record the observation and do not conclude from it that permission has been excluded.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: Input the hypothetical sample text "Store authorization list item 12: the entity is East China distributor A, the authorized store is platform store S-101, the validity period is January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025" and the draft request "Please hand over operations authority for store S-101 to distributor B, handover date April 1, 2025." Compare whether the request entity matches the authorization list entity, and whether the handover date falls inside the validity period. Expected phenomenon: when the entities differ and confirmation material from the original authorizing party is absent, the request remains in pending verification status and does not enter authority-change execution.
- Verification two: Input the handover request fields collected by the Form Input node, and compare whether the fields include entity, object, date, and basis. Expected phenomenon: when fields are missing, downstream nodes receive incomplete input, and the check record marks the missing fields; when fields are complete, downstream nodes continue execution according to their connections. For an empty-result handoff, a paper input of [] may be used to check the downstream design, without concluding that a retrieval rule necessarily returns an empty result.
- Verification three: Input the User Selection node's selection result and the subsequent branch connection, and compare whether the selection result corresponds to branch execution. Expected phenomenon: selecting "yes" executes the corresponding branch, and selecting otherwise executes the other branch; branch execution does not produce an approval or authorization conclusion, and authority changes still require a separate business interface or subsequent process.
Verification four: Input the price control table entry "Store S-101, period March 2025, minimum selling price 100 yuan" and the handover request date of April 1, 2025. Compare the price control period against the handover date. Expected phenomenon: the price control entry covers March 2025 only, so the April 1 handover date falls outside the recorded price period; record the period mismatch as a gap and do not treat the price control entry as covering the handover date.