What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selling happens before a broadcast. The question is whether a product can be sold and whether it suits live demonstration. The working materials are supplier files, testing-agency reports, platform negative lists, and historical return rates. Day-to-day documents include the sample evaluation form, the quality inspection report, supplier qualifications, and the prohibited-sale list. Typical roles are the selection manager, the supply-chain business development contact, and the quality inspection specialist. The supplied brief gives update frequency as weekly and per item.
At the interactive forms step, the form collects field values from these documents. The form input node and the user selection node do not act as a business database. Field validation, approval, write-back, and external synchronization require later nodes or an external system. A retrieval result is not an authorization. A submitted form is not an approval.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
When the form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. After submission, the entered information is passed to later nodes. The user selection node also enters an interactive state and executes the branch that matches the user's choice. Neither node judges authorization, and neither verifies whether a qualification is genuine. Operations handover concerns the state of handover materials and requests: which materials, actions, and requests are authorized, and which remain pending.
Hypothetical drill sample. Source text one: "Supplier A submits a sample evaluation form. The evaluated object is insulated cup model A. The evaluation stage is pending quality inspection. The evaluation date is 10 March 2025. The quantity is 2 units." Source text two: "Quality inspection report number Q-2025-0312 corresponds to insulated cup model A. The report status is issued. The supplier qualification validity period is not stated."
Proposed handover request for determination: "Based on the two materials above, mark the supplier qualification status for insulated cup model A as verified, and approve it for broadcast."
Neither source text states a qualification verification conclusion. A report status of issued is not the same fact as a verified qualification. The request lacks evidence of the qualification validity scope. The correct state is pending verification. The qualification cannot be marked as verified, and broadcast cannot be approved on this basis.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below is tied to the hypothetical drill sample. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial, not official defaults.
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason for the choice and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node fields | Object, stage, date, quantity | Covers the collectable fields in source text one; compare against missing fields |
| User selection node branches | Pending verification, verified | Compare against the two possible conclusions in the proposed request |
| Required-information check | Qualification validity period marked required | Source text two does not state this field; used to observe missing-field behavior |
| Interactive state observation | State recorded and waiting after trigger | Compare against the documented definition of the interactive state |
| Downstream handling split | Qualification verification implemented by an external system | The form node does not perform business verification; compare against the handover request |
| Retrieval scope check | Target retrieval scope with access rights | When absent, record the gap; do not extend to same-model requirements for external systems |
Three common errors
- Treating the report status "issued" as a verified qualification. Input is the two source texts. The comparison item is the qualification verification conclusion field. The source texts do not state that conclusion. The observable result should be pending verification.
- Treating the proposed handover request as already executed. Input is that request. The comparison item is an approval or signature record. The request itself is not an authorization. The observable result should be unsupported.
- Treating the branch result of the user selection node as a permission decision. Input is the choice "verified". The comparison item is the verification record in the external system. The node only executes a branch. The observable result should be that business verification still requires a separate system implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Enter source text one into the form input node. Check whether the four items object, stage, date, and quantity are passed to later nodes. Compare the field values before and after submission. The condition is satisfied when all four values match and required items are complete.
- Submit source text two together with the proposed request. Check whether the missing qualification validity period is recorded. Compare the required field against the content stated in the source text. The condition is satisfied when the missing item is marked pending verification and "verified" is not output.
- Select the "verified" branch in the user selection node. Check whether any business verification action appears downstream. Compare the branch result against the external system record. When the branch executes but the verification record is absent, the satisfied condition is a recorded gap; the state is not determined to be verified.
The checks above describe what to compare and what remains unknown. No test has been run, and no deployment, approval, or refund has occurred. A pending request is not an approval. An offered option is not execution.