What the documents look like
Channel diversion reviews address regional and price order. They do not calculate rebate amounts. The working materials are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices and investigation photographs. Data arrives from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records and market inspections. Updates run weekly and irregularly. Each material carries a different kind of clue for operations handover. An anti-counterfeit code record can point to the origin of goods. A complaint form can point to the party under complaint. A penalty notice can point to a decision already made. An investigation photograph can point to an on-site situation. Workflow routing has to keep material collection, permission confirmation and handover requests separate. A retrieval result is not an authorization conclusion.
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 the workflow continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects required form information and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node behaves the same way at trigger. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding branch. Interaction state and state recording are behaviors of the interaction nodes. No separate global state-recording switch is documented. Collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes, and outputs must be compared field by field against inputs. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. A form submission does not perform them automatically. Retrieval and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation. The requirement that a knowledge base share one vector model does not extend to external systems. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching items excluded.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand channel control staff member receives a diversion complaint form. The original text reads: "Party under complaint: East China distributor A; goods involved: batch A anti-counterfeit code range; complaint status is pending regional manager verification; attachment: two investigation photographs." A proposed handover request reads: "Please transfer this complaint form to the regional manager and authorize the regional manager to directly execute the penalty." The material shows only pending verification and states no penalty authorization. The phrase "directly execute the penalty" in the proposed handover request does not match the material status and must be handled as a pending item.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Starting point for this hypothetical exercise | Comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input required fields | Party under complaint, goods batch, complaint status | Check each field against the complaint form original text |
| User Selection branch | Yes branch connects to "transfer to regional manager for verification" | Check whether the branch connection matches the proposed handover request |
| Interaction state recording | Enters interaction state after trigger | Observe whether the conversation enters interaction state and records it |
| Output receiving node | Passes collected information to a later retrieval or judgment node | Compare output fields against input fields one by one |
| External operation division | Penalty execution marked as requiring a separate business interface | Check whether any configuration executes the penalty automatically |
| Retrieval scope check | Verify material identifiers and access scope only | Record actual observations; do not infer unstated results |
The starting points in this hypothetical exercise illustrate comparison methods only. They are not official default values. The required-field starting point was chosen from fields appearing in the material. The User Selection branch starting point was chosen from the action named in the proposed handover request. Both must be compared against the material original text before consistency is judged.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-verification status as authorized penalty execution. Input is the complaint form original text "complaint status is pending regional manager verification." Comparison is the proposed handover request "authorize the regional manager to directly execute the penalty." When the two do not match, record the item as pending verification and do not execute the penalty.
- Treating a retrieval result as a permission conclusion. Input is a complaint form record returned by retrieval. Comparison is the authorization scope in the handover request. When the retrieval result states no authorization, keep the evidence gap open and do not treat it as authorized.
- Treating a form submission as completed external synchronization. Input is complaint information collected by the form. Comparison is whether the downstream node has a business interface configured. When none is configured, record the item as not synchronized and do not state that a penalty notice was issued.
How to verify the setup
- Use the complaint form original text and the proposed handover request from the hypothetical sample. Check whether the User Selection branch connects to "transfer to regional manager for verification." When the branch connection matches the proposed handover request, the condition is met. When it does not match, record the difference.
- Use the status "pending regional manager verification" from the hypothetical sample. Check whether the output receiving node passes that status to a later judgment node. When the output field matches the input field, the condition is met. When the field is missing, record the gap.
- Use the penalty execution request from the hypothetical sample. Check whether the external operation division marks it as requiring a separate business interface. When no automatic penalty execution configuration exists, the condition is met. When an automatic execution configuration exists, record the item as pending verification.