What the documents look like
Producer export tax refund and offset combines domestic-sales tax offset with refund calculation, which distinguishes it from the single-stage processing seen in foreign-trade enterprise export refund. This characteristic means an operations handover spans several systems: the electronic tax bureau, ERP sales, customs electronic information and the financial ledger. The documents handled day to day include the refund and offset declaration detail schedule, export contracts, the sales detail ledger and export customs declarations. Collecting self-produced export items, calculating the refund and offset, and handling free-on-board price differences are the more time-consuming steps, so a handover has to confirm the status of each item one by one.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
When the form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user completes the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The user selection node judges the user's choice and executes the branch for that choice. Neither node carries a business database function. Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations must be implemented in external systems or subsequent nodes. Retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorization to execute.
Hypothetical drill sample: a producer enterprise hands over a batch of March 2026 refund and offset materials. Source text one: "Export contract A-2026-03 provides for settlement at free-on-board price, signed on 5 March 2026, with seals from both parties." Source text two: "Sales detail ledger, March 2026 voucher number 12, records export revenue from self-produced goods, amount consistent with customs declaration B-2026-0312." Draft sentence to be assessed: "The handover person has already submitted export contract A-2026-03 and customs declaration B-2026-0312 for the refund declaration, and the declaration has been accepted." Assessment point: the source text shows only contract signing and consistency between ledger and declaration. It does not state that a declaration was submitted or accepted, so the draft sentence is not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented official behavior | Enters interactive state when triggered, collects required information and passes it to subsequent nodes |
| User selection node | Documented official behavior | Executes a branch according to the choice, and does not serve as a data selector |
| Required-information check | Implementation check item | List the fields this task cannot omit, and test the behavior for a missing item and after it is supplied |
| Interactive-state waiting | Documented official behavior | Records workflow state and continues downward after interaction completes |
| Downstream processing split | Implementation check item | Field validation, approval and write-back are implemented in external systems as needed |
| Hypothetical trial starting point: number of required fields | Hypothetical value | This hypothetical trial sets three items, on the reasoning that they cover subject, object and status; compared against the missing-item situation |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as completed business approval. The input is the sample draft sentence; the comparison is whether the source text states an approval fact; the observable result is that the source text does not state it, so the sentence is unsupported.
- Treating the user selection node as a personnel directory or business data selector. The input is the node documentation; the comparison is its stated functional scope; the observable result is that the documentation describes only branch execution.
- Treating retrieval relevance as a permission or entity-isolation mechanism. The input is the retrieval setting; the comparison is whether it contains an authorization field; the observable result is that retrieval does not perform authorization judgment.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence; compare whether the draft sentence exceeds what the source text states; the condition is met when an unsupported sentence is judged correctly.
- Input the missing-required-field situation; compare whether the node enters interactive waiting; the condition is met when the missing item is not submitted and the completed item is passed to subsequent nodes.
- Input the handover request; compare whether the request carries an authorization basis; the condition is met when a request without an authorization basis does not proceed to declaration execution and the evidence gap is retained.