What the documents look like
Channel diversion review concerns regional and price order. It does not handle rebate amounts. The materials in this category include diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices and inspection photographs. Sources include the anti-counterfeit code system, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records and market inspections. Update rhythm is weekly or irregular.
For operations handover, each document carries a state that the two sides must confirm at the same interactive step. A complaint form may be pending acceptance or already filed. An anti-counterfeit code record corresponds to a specific shipment batch. A penalty notice may or may not have been issued. An inspection photograph relates to a specific inspection date. The forms and interaction step exists so that the handing-over and receiving sides confirm the material list and the authorization boundary together, and so that “submitted” is not read as “approved” and “pending review” is not read as “authorized for execution.”
Constraints at the interactive forms step
When the form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, records the workflow state, and waits for the user to complete the entries. After submission, the collected form information is passed to later nodes. The user selection node judges the user’s choice and executes the corresponding branch. Neither node carries a business database. Field validation, approval, write-back and batch operations need to be implemented in an external system or in later nodes. In a diversion review handover, the complaint form identifier, anti-counterfeit code batch, region scope and penalty notice state are fields that must be collected; if any one is missing, later nodes cannot judge whether the material falls inside the authorized scope. The interactive state only means the workflow is waiting for input. It does not mean any business approval has completed. Information retrieved or collected through a form does not constitute operational authorization; permission decisions need separate implementation in later nodes or an external system.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A paper handover request from a brand channel control team reads: “Complaint form CC-2024-017, concerning shipment records of distributor A in the East China region, anti-counterfeit code batch FC-8801 to FC-8850, inspection photographs taken during the 2024-03-12 inspection, penalty notice not yet issued. Request to transfer follow-up permission for this complaint form from regional manager A to regional manager B.” The proposed determination sentence is: “This complaint form has completed penalty, and can be handed to B to execute the follow-up penalty.” What needs to be checked: the penalty notice is in the not-issued state, and the claim “has completed penalty” in the proposed determination sentence is inconsistent with the source wording.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint form identifier | Form input field | Collects the identifier of the diversion complaint form; passed to later nodes after submission |
| Anti-counterfeit code batch range | Form input field | Records the start and end codes involved, used to check against shipment records |
| Region and distributor | Form input field | Entries for region name and distributor identifier, limiting the review scope |
| Penalty notice state | User selection branch | Choose “issued” or “not issued”; different follow-up paths run accordingly |
| Handover request confirmation | User selection branch | Choose “agree to transfer” or “do not transfer yet”; records the choice result |
| Interactive state record | Node behavior | Records workflow state and waits for interaction after triggering; continues after completion |
Hypothetical starting value for this exercise: the penalty notice state field is set to “not issued.” This value is chosen because the sample source text explicitly states “penalty notice not yet issued.” When checking, compare this selection result with the source wording “not yet issued”; if they agree, the do-not-transfer-yet branch is entered. This starting value is a paper exercise setting, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as completed business approval. In the sample, the complaint form has a submitted handover request, but the penalty notice is not issued. If a later node directly processes it as “approved,” the authorization boundary is crossed. Check method: input the sample source text, compare “not yet issued” with the proposed determination sentence “has completed penalty,” observe whether the two agree; if they do not agree, the execution branch should not be entered.
- Treating the branch result of a user selection as a granted permission. A user selecting “agree to transfer” only means a choice was made. It does not mean the transfer has taken effect in the business system. Check method: input the selection result “agree to transfer,” compare it with the actual permission change record in the external system, observe whether a corresponding permission change entry exists; if no entry exists, the transfer has not taken effect.
- Treating retrieved material as verified evidence. An anti-counterfeit code record being retrieved does not mean the batch has been confirmed as within the diversion scope. Check method: input anti-counterfeit code batch FC-8801 to FC-8850, compare the regional attribution of this batch in the shipment records with the sample statement “distributor A in the East China region,” observe whether the two point to the same region; if they do not agree, or if the shipment records do not state a region, record the evidence gap and do not determine that the batch falls within the diversion scope.
How to verify the setup
- Verification 1: Input the hypothetical sample source text (containing “penalty notice not yet issued”), compare the proposed determination sentence “This complaint form has completed penalty, and can be handed to B to execute the follow-up penalty,” and observe whether the selection result of the penalty notice state field is “not issued.” If it is “not issued,” the proposed determination sentence is inconsistent with the source text and the execution branch should not be entered. This is a paper expectation; it has not been run.
- Verification 2: Input the handover request in the hypothetical sample, compare the user selection branch result “agree to transfer” with the actual permission record of regional manager B in the external system, and observe whether a corresponding permission change entry exists. If it does not exist, the handover request remains pending and does not constitute an executed permission handover.
- Verification 3: Input anti-counterfeit code batch FC-8801 to FC-8850, compare the regional annotation of this batch in the shipment records with the sample statement “distributor A in the East China region,” and observe whether the two point to the same region. If they do not agree, or if the shipment records do not state a region, record the evidence gap and do not determine that the batch falls within the diversion scope.