What the documents look like
Producer export tax exemption, offset and refund combines domestic sales tax offset with export refund in one calculation. That combined path differs from the processing route used for trading-company export refunds. The materials handled at this step are the exemption, offset and refund declaration detail schedule, export contracts, the sales subsidiary ledger and export customs declarations. Data sources include the electronic tax bureau, ERP sales records, customs electronic information and financial accounts.
During an operations handover, the declaration detail schedule carries the filing basis, export contracts and customs declarations carry the export facts, and the sales subsidiary ledger carries the aggregated domestic and export results. Workflow routing has to distinguish which authorization state each material currently holds. Submitted, pending review and approved are separate facts. A pending review does not indicate that operating permission is absent.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
After a Form Input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. Once the user fills the required information and submits, the node collects the form information and passes it to later nodes. A User Selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The interactive state and branch execution are existing node behaviors.
Collected information has to be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes, and outputs are compared against inputs item by item. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. The nodes themselves do not complete those business actions. Retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorization; permission decisions require an independent business check.
Hypothetical drill sample: a tax accountant at a producer enterprise submits a handover request in June 2025. The material text reads: "The exemption, offset and refund declaration detail schedule (period May 2025) has been reviewed by the tax accountant and is pending review; export contract HT-2025-018 corresponds to a customs declaration already archived; May export sales in the sales subsidiary ledger have been aggregated." The draft judgment sentence is: "The exemption, offset and refund declaration for this period has been approved and the refund may be executed." That draft treats pending review as approved. The evidence does not state an approval fact, so the judgment is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relation to this page's documents | Verification method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collects the period, material name and current status from the handover request | After submission, compare collected values with the material text |
| User Selection node | Verifies each "yes" branch connection | Check the later node the branch points to |
| Interactive state | Records workflow state after an interactive node is triggered | Observe entry into the interactive state and resumed execution |
| Output handoff | Passes collected information to later retrieval or judgment nodes | Compare input and output fields item by item |
| External operation division | Order writing, document backfill and external synchronization connect to separate interfaces | Check the connected systems and trigger conditions |
The hypothetical starting value for this trial is "pending review" in the current status field of the handover request. It is chosen because that status value appears explicitly in the material text, and the comparison object is the status value recorded in the material text.
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as approved. The handover request states "status is pending review," while the draft judgment sentence says "has been approved and the refund may be executed." Both belong to the status field but hold mutually exclusive values, so the judgment is unsupported.
- Treating form collection as authorized execution. The Form Input node collects and passes information; it does not complete a refund or a write. Without a later interface, the business action has not occurred.
- Treating a retrieval hit as a permission pass. Retrieval results and relevance scores do not carry entity or permission isolation. A hit record still has to be checked against the authorization scope.
How to verify the setup
- Input the material text and the draft judgment sentence from the hypothetical sample, compare the status field values "pending review" and "has been approved," and treat an unsupported judgment as the expected result.
- Input the handover request, compare the period collected by the form against the period in the material text, and treat a match with complete output handoff fields as satisfying the condition.
- Input the "yes" branch of the User Selection node, compare the branch connection against the later node, and treat each verified connection as satisfying the condition. Where no approval fact is stated, record the evidence gap.