What the documents look like
Group-buy leader operations manages community nodes and commission, and does not directly perform cold-chain quality inspection. The main data comes from the community group-buy backend, leader community groups, order details, and after-sales records. Daily documents include leader agreements, commission tables, pickup lists, and community announcements. The supplied brief gives the update frequency as daily and per group. For this task, workflow routing handles operations permissions and handover: which materials, actions, and requests sit at what authorization state. Form collection and retrieval results cannot be treated as authorization to execute.
The four document types differ in what they can support. A leader agreement can carry a term and a signing date. A commission table can carry a rate for a named leader and a named period. A pickup list can carry an order and a signed status at a pickup point. A community announcement carries broadcast content. None of these documents, by itself, grants a downstream business action such as adjusting a pickup point or changing a rate.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the interaction the workflow continues downward. The node collects required information and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates the choice and executes the "yes" branch. The interaction state record is behavior of the interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is documented. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and semantic recall do not carry permission or entity isolation; retrieval is not authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source text to be checked reads: "Leader A and the platform signed a leader agreement on 1 March 2025, with an agreement term from 1 March 2025 to 31 August 2025; the commission table states that Leader A's commission rate for May 2025 is 4%; the pickup list shows that an order at pickup point A was signed for on 20 May 2025." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "Leader A's commission rate for May 2025 is 5%, and Leader A may adjust the pickup point on their own." The draft sentence and the commission table share the same subject, the same period, and the same field, and the values are mutually exclusive, so the sentence is unsupported. The authority to adjust the pickup point is not stated in the materials, so that part remains an evidence gap.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Interaction node | Enters an interaction state when triggered, collects required information, and passes it to later nodes after submission |
| User Selection node | Interaction node | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice; verify each branch connection one by one |
| Output handoff check | Implementation check | Clearly pass collected information to a later retrieval, judgment, or interface node, and compare each output against its input |
| External action split | Implementation check | Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | The state record is behavior of the interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is set |
| Hypothetical exercise starting value | Paper check | Use the 4% commission rate for May 2025 from the sample as the comparison starting point against the 5% in the draft sentence; this starting point is chosen because the materials state the same subject, the same period, and the same field |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result as authorization. The input is the draft sentence "may adjust the pickup point on their own," compared against the source text. The materials do not state pickup point adjustment authority, so the observable result is that this authority remains to be verified and cannot be judged as granted.
- Treating form submission as completed approval. The input is the required information collected by the form, compared against the downstream node design. After submission the information is passed to later nodes, so the observable result is that business approval requires a separate process and cannot be treated as approved.
- Treating a pending review as missing operating permission. The input is the absence of a review status field in the materials, compared against the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The observable result is that the field is not stated, and a negative conclusion cannot be drawn.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text and the draft sentence, and compare the commission rate field. The materials give 4% and the draft sentence gives 5%, with the same subject, the same period, and the same field holding mutually exclusive values. When this mutually exclusive value pair appears, the condition is met and the draft sentence is judged unsupported.
- Input the draft sentence "may adjust the pickup point on their own" and compare it against the source text. The materials do not state this authority. When an unstated field appears, the condition is met, and the item is recorded as an evidence gap to be verified.
- Input a paper empty result
[]and compare it against the downstream node design. The downstream node must explicitly accept an empty result. When an explicit acceptance design appears, the condition is met; the actual result returned by retrieval is not asserted on this page.