Multi-terminal collaborative enterprise work order sla arrangement method and device

Abstract

The application relates to the technical field of enterprise transaction processing and intelligent work order management, and discloses a multi-terminal cooperative enterprise work order SLA arrangement method and device. The method receives enterprise transaction requests from a management terminal, a client terminal, an employee terminal, a customer service system, a public mail system, a process system, a batch import terminal or a third-party interface, converts the enterprise transaction requests into access records R0, and performs source credibility verification, field extraction, customer subject association, business type identification, semantic coding, attachment fingerprint calculation, permission context completion, SLA template matching and idempotent feature generation to form a unified work order vector X; and then based on idempotent deduplication, graph writing, permission constraint routing, state synchronization, notification degradation and hash chain auditing, accurate work order distribution, time limit control and traceable processing are realized.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the fields of enterprise transaction processing, intelligent work order management, process collaboration, access control, and service level agreement orchestration, and in particular to a multi-terminal collaborative enterprise work order SLA orchestration method and apparatus. Background Technology

[0002] In enterprise services, customer support, human resources, legal, finance, and cross-departmental operations scenarios, transaction requests typically originate from multiple entry points, such as customer self-service terminals, internal employee terminals, management terminals, public email systems, customer service chat systems, approval process systems, batch file imports, and third-party business interfaces. The data structures, permission contexts, visibility requirements, processing time limits, and status definitions vary significantly across these different entry points.

[0003] Existing work order systems typically revolve around a single creation entry point or a single workflow engine, using simple field mapping to create work orders for requests from multiple sources. When the same item is submitted repeatedly via email, client, and workflow system, the system often has to rely on the title or manual judgment for deduplication, which easily leads to duplicate work orders, dispersed responsibilities, and inconsistent communication with customers.

[0004] Existing SLA management mostly uses static deadlines or fixed priority rules, lacking dynamic comprehensive judgment of customer level, business impact, handler load, parent-child work order blockage, notification failure, external callback failure, and historical overdue probability. This results in reminders being triggered only when the due date is approaching, making it impossible to complete intelligent reminders, supervisor upgrades, or notification channel downgrades in advance.

[0005] Existing multi-role collaboration typically handles access control, routing assignment, and status display separately. When the same work order is displayed across different folders, views, customer organizations, and tenants, issues such as unauthorized viewing, incorrect assignment, or premature exposure of external status can easily occur if there are no unified constraints on functional permissions, data visibility, attachment sensitivity levels, and audit snapshot permissions.

[0006] Furthermore, the existing system lacks a unified event versioning mechanism and audit chain for reply editing, attachment supplementation, external message callbacks, deletion recovery, parent-child work order dependencies, and concurrent state changes. When disputes arise, it is difficult to explain why the system selected a particular handler, triggered a certain upgrade, or merged or blocked a certain work order creation, and it is also difficult to perform traceable historical playback.

[0007] Therefore, there is a need for an enterprise transaction work order management method and device that can form a continuous technical link between multi-source access, idempotent deduplication, permission isolation, intelligent routing, SLA dynamic risk orchestration, status synchronization and audit trail, so as to improve the accuracy, timeliness controllability and interpretability of complex enterprise transaction processing. Summary of the Invention

[0008] The purpose of this invention is to provide a method and apparatus for orchestrating SLAs of multi-terminal collaborative enterprise work orders, so as to overcome the shortcomings of the prior art.

[0009] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solution: A method for managing enterprise transaction work orders based on multi-terminal collaboration and SLA intelligent orchestration, characterized in that it includes: S101, receiving enterprise transaction requests sent by at least one source end, wherein the source end includes at least one of a management end, a client end, an employee end, a customer service system, a public email system, a process system, a batch import end, and a third-party interface; S102, converting the enterprise transaction request into an access record R0, and performing source trust verification, field extraction, customer subject association, business type identification, text semantic encoding, attachment fingerprint calculation, permission context completion, SLA template matching, external association feature extraction, and idempotent feature generation on the access record R0 to obtain a unified work order vector X; S103, performing strong idempotency judgment and weak similarity repetition scoring based on the unified work order vector X, and outputting merging, association, confirmation prompt, or blocking of work order creation results when the preset repetition conditions are met, and creating a work order and generating work order internal code, source tag, owner account, client visibility identifier, initial internal state, initial external state, and SLA template version when the preset repetition conditions are not met. S104. Write the work order and its associated handlers, roles, customer organizations, business types, folders, views, SLA templates, process nodes, external messages, attachment objects, notification tasks, report indicators, and audit events into the enterprise transaction graph; S105. Under the constraint of permission tensors, calculate the routing cost by combining handler load, business experience, organizational association, historical processing effect, SLA risk value, handler switching cost, queue blocking degree, and insufficient permission penalty, and determine the current handler, collaborating handler, and copy recipient; S106. In response to work order creation, reply, editing, transfer, closing, deletion, restoration, creation of sub-work orders, field updates, external message association, external callbacks, and permission change events, perform internal and external state mapping, message state synchronization, parent-child dependency updates, permission verification, event version conflict handling, and audit timeline recording; S107. Generate reminder sequences, follow-up sequences, supervisor upgrade notifications, notification downgrade tasks, and operational report indicators based on SLA risk values, notification channel status, event versions, and upgrade strategies.

[0010] The unified work order vector X is represented as: Where s is the source code, c is the customer organization or customer entity code, b is the business type set, o is the initiator identity, d is the semantic embedding of title, detailed description, customer service conversation summary, email body or process failure reason, a is the attachment fingerprint set, t is the features of deadline, first call time limit, processing time limit and resolution time limit, q is the source credibility, p is the permission context, m is the idempotency and duplicate order creation features, r is the external message, process instance or batch import batch association feature, v is the event version and status version feature, z is the downgrade processing identifier; the numerical features in the unified work order vector X are normalized, the enumerated features are encoded, and stored together with the generation time and template version.

[0011] The source trust verification includes: for page-based requests, verifying login status, account status, session validity, anti-replay token, and source IP; for API-based requests, verifying API whitelist, application key, signature timestamp, signature digest, callback address, and request replay window; for email-based requests, verifying sender domain, sender binding relationship, email unique identifier, email header signature, and attachment security scan results; and for batch import requests, verifying importer permissions, header template version, row-level data integrity, batch import uniqueness, and single-row error isolation rules.

[0012] The field extraction includes mapping source-side fields to title, detailed description, attachment, creator, creation time, account, customer entity, business type, deadline, priority, visibility, external message identifier, process instance identifier, and batch line number. When a field is missing, candidate completion values ​​are generated based on the source-side type, account organization permissions, historical similar work orders, email context, process node context, attachment text summary, and customer entity candidate relationship. The missing field, candidate completion value, completion confidence, suggested completion person, and completion time limit are written into the completion task.

[0013] The strong idempotency determination is based on a strong idempotency index formed by the source request identifier, request hash, source encoding, external message identifier, process instance identifier, and batch import line number; the weak similarity duplication score is calculated based on title similarity, description semantic similarity, attachment fingerprint similarity, customer subject consistency, business type consistency, creation time window, initiator relationship, and external source relationship to calculate a comprehensive duplication score.

[0014] The comprehensive repeat score D is configured as follows: Each weight is determined by the business type template; when D exceeds the first threshold, a duplicate prompt is output; when D exceeds the second threshold, a merge candidate flag is generated; when D exceeds the third threshold and the source is automatically triggered by the system, the creation of a new work order is blocked and the external message is appended to the existing work order.

[0015] The enterprise transaction graph includes work order nodes, handler nodes, role nodes, customer organization nodes, business type nodes, folder nodes, view nodes, SLA template nodes, process nodes, external message nodes, attachment object nodes, notification task nodes, report indicator nodes, and audit event nodes; the edge relationships of the enterprise transaction graph include creation, processing, collaboration, copy, parent-child, visibility, archiving, upgrading, similarity, dependency, historical participation, source association, attachment ownership, template application, notification delivery, permission constraints, and report drill-down relationships.

[0016] The permission verification passed the permission tensor. Implementation, where u is the user, a is the operation, and o is the work order object, attachment object, audit event object, or report object; It is jointly determined by the user role matrix, folder or view data range matrix, function permission matrix, ownership account constraint, client visibility constraint, tenant isolation label, deletion status constraint, parent-child work order inheritance constraint, attachment sensitivity level constraint, and historical snapshot viewing constraint.

[0017] Determining the current processor includes constructing a candidate processor set U and calculating the routing cost for each candidate processor u. The candidate processor with the lowest routing cost and that passes the permission tensor verification is selected as the current processor.

[0018] When the difference in routing costs among multiple candidate handlers is less than a preset difference threshold, a secondary sorting is performed based on historical satisfaction, recent idle time, continuous service relationship with the customer, success rate of processing the same business type, supervisor-assigned priority, customer service level, recent overdue rate, and current notification reachability. When none of the candidate handlers pass the permission tensor validation, the work order is assigned to the fallback processing queue, an abnormal routing event is generated, and the reason for insufficient permissions, the number of candidate handlers, and the fallback queue identifier are written into the audit timeline.

[0019] The SLA risk value The system calculates the following parameters: initial response time, processing time, resolution time, current remaining time, work order complexity, customer level, scope of business impact, most recent response time, historical overdue probability of the handler, current workload of the handler, notification delivery status, parent-child work order dependency relationship, and external callback status. When the SLA risk value exceeds the reminder threshold, a pending reminder is generated; when it exceeds the expediting threshold, an instant messaging expediting is generated; and when it exceeds the escalation threshold, a supervisor escalation notification and report alert are generated.

[0020] The SLA risk value Where TimePressure is the time pressure value, Complexity is the complexity value, CustomerLevel is the customer level value, Impact is the business impact range value, OverdueProb is the historical overdue probability of the handler, ChildBlock is the child work order blocking value, NotifyFail is the notification failure value, and CallbackFail is the external callback failure value.

[0021] The internal and external state mapping includes: displaying three states—pending acceptance, accepted, and completed—on the external end, and displaying seven states—pending acceptance, accepted, completed, rejected, closed, deleted, and restored—on the internal end; the states of pending acceptance, accepted, completed, and rejected are stored independently according to the processor dimension. When any internal processor's state changes to accepted, the external state is mapped to accepted; when the overall internal state changes to closed, the external state is mapped to completed.

[0022] The event version conflict handling includes maintaining a status version number, response version number, attachment version number, external message version number, and SLA template version number for each work order; when a client-side material replenishment event and a management-side completion event occur concurrently within a preset time window, the final status is determined based on the event timestamp, event version number, status transition rules, and visibility rules, and the conflict handling result is written into the audit timeline.

[0023] The message status synchronization includes: when the management terminal adds or edits a reply, a reminder identifier is generated in the reply record and work order list on the client, and the corresponding unread status on the management terminal is updated to read after the client views the reply; when the client adds or edits a reply, a reminder identifier is generated in the reply record and work order list on the management terminal, and the reminder identifier is removed after the client views the reply; the reminder identifier is bound to the reply version number, the viewer, the viewing time, the viewing terminal, the visibility range, and the attachment permission verification result.

[0024] The creation of sub-work orders includes generating first-level sub-work orders in response to the sub-work order creation instruction of the parent work order, so that one parent work order corresponds to multiple sub-work orders and one sub-work order corresponds to only one parent work order; the parent work order and the sub-work order remain independent of each other except for the parent-child relationship, risk aggregation relationship and blocking prompt relationship; the SLA risk value of the parent work order is aggregated based on the highest risk value of the sub-work order, the average risk value of the sub-work order, the number of blocked sub-work orders, the remaining time of the key sub-work orders, and the number of sub-work order callback failures.

[0025] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has at least the following beneficial effects: First, reduce the probability of duplicate order creation at multiple entry points by using a unified work order vector and idempotent index; Second, the accuracy and security of routing for human users can be improved by utilizing enterprise transaction graphs and permission tensors; Third, utilize SLA risk values ​​and notification downgrade mechanisms to identify overdue risks in advance; Fourth, improve the explainability of concurrent processing, deletion recovery, and dispute tracing by leveraging event versioning and hash chain auditing; Fifth, by leveraging drill-down relationships in reports to link operational metrics with specific audit events, it becomes easier to continuously optimize processes. Detailed Implementation

[0026] The technical solution of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments. The embodiments are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of protection of the present invention. Equivalent substitutions made by those skilled in the art for the order of steps, module deployment methods, and data storage methods without departing from the concept of the present invention should all fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0027] In this embodiment, an enterprise transaction request refers to a matter that needs to be accepted, assigned, processed, responded to, supplemented, closed, or traced by an internal or external collaborating entity. This request can be a customer-submitted inquiry, complaint, contract amendment, or data correction; it can also be an internal transaction application submitted by an employee, an abnormal task triggered by a process system, a customer service conversation transfer, or a batch-imported operational matter.

[0028] The system can include an access layer, a standardization layer, a work order core layer, a graph routing layer, an SLA orchestration layer, a notification layer, a permission layer, an audit layer, and a reporting layer. Each layer can be deployed on the same server or distributed through microservices, message queues, database stored procedures, or cloud functions.

[0029] In step S101, the access layer receives enterprise transaction requests sent by the source end. For the management end, client end, and employee end, the access layer can receive page forms, attachment uploads, rich text replies, and operation events; for the customer service system, it can receive session summaries, visitor identifiers, session tags, and customer service transfer reasons; for the public email system, it can receive email headers, email bodies, attachments, and sender / recipient information; for the workflow system, it can receive workflow instance number, node name, failure reason, responsible person, and callback address.

[0030] For batch import, the access layer can read multiple rows of items from a table file. Each row is converted into a candidate access record and bound to the import batch number and row number. The batch import allows some rows to fail without affecting the continued processing of other rows. Failed rows generate row-level error records, pending completion tasks, or duplicate candidate prompts.

[0031] In step S102, the system converts the enterprise transaction request into an access record R0. R0 includes at least the source code, source request identifier, request time, initiator identity, original field set, attachment reference, original visibility scope, callback address, initial source credibility value, and original request digest. R0 is used to preserve the original appearance of the source side, and the subsequent unified work order vector X is used for cross-source comparison and routing.

[0032] Source trust verification can employ different rules depending on the source type. For web pages, verification is required for login status, account status, session validity, anti-replay token, and source IP. For APIs, verification is required for application key, signature digest, signature timestamp, callback address, and request replay window. For emails, verification is required for sender domain, sender binding relationship, email unique identifier, and attachment security scan results. For batch imports, verification is required for importer permissions, template version, row-level integrity, and batch uniqueness.

[0033] If the source trust verification fails, the system does not directly generate a visible work order. Instead, it generates a rejection event, an isolation event, or a pending manual confirmation event based on the failure type. For example, a rejection event is generated when the interface signature expires, an isolation event is generated when the email attachment poses a security risk, and a pending confirmation event is generated when the sender is bound to multiple customer entities.

[0034] The field extraction module maps fields from different sources to unified fields. The title can come from the page title, email subject, customer service conversation subject, or process node name; the detailed description can come from the page description, email body, conversation summary, or process failure reason; the creator can come from the login account, sender email address, API application subject, or importer; the customer subject can come from the account organization, email domain, contract number, process instance context, or historical association.

[0035] When a field is missing, the system does not simply reject the creation of the order, but generates candidate completion values. For example, if the customer subject is missing, the system can generate candidate customer subjects by combining the sender's email binding relationship, the customer name in the attachment, the subject of similar historical emails, and the most recently associated work orders; if the business type is missing, the system can generate candidate business types by combining title keywords, semantic embedding, process nodes, and attachment summaries.

[0036] Candidate completion values ​​and completion confidence scores are written together into the completion task. If the confidence score exceeds the auto-completion threshold, the system can automatically write it into the unified work order vector and record the completion basis in the audit event; if it is lower than the auto-completion threshold, the system will set the work order to a pending completion or internal temporary storage state to avoid incorrect subjects causing unauthorized display.

[0037] The text semantic encoding module performs segmentation, cleaning, stop word processing, entity recognition, and vectorization on the title, description, email body, conversation summary, and process failure reasons. Semantic embedding can be generated using machine learning models, rule templates, or a combination of both; when the semantic service is unavailable, the system can degrade to keyword matching and rule classification, and record the degradation processing identifier z.

[0038] The attachment fingerprint calculation module generates a fingerprint set 'a' for uploaded files, email attachments, and process attachments. Fingerprints can include file hashes, filename normalization results, file size, page count, text digests, image OCR digests, and sensitivity level tags. For attachments such as contracts, certificates, and supporting documents, the system can use the attachment digests for duplicate scoring and permission verification.

[0039] The SLA template matching module determines the initial response time, processing time, and resolution time based on customer level, contract service level, business type, source, request creation time, and holiday rules. The template version number is written into the unified work order vector X and the initial audit event, which can determine whether the risk value of unclosed work orders needs to be recalculated when the template is changed subsequently.

[0040] After the unified work order vector X is generated, the system normalizes its numerical features, encodes the enumerated features, and stores the semantic vector in a versioned manner. X does not replace the original request R0, but serves as the standard input for subsequent idempotency, deduplication, routing, SLA orchestration, and report analysis.

[0041] s、r Source encoding, external messages, or process instance association features Source trust verification, strong idempotency judgment, external callback c, p Customer principal code, permission context Subject association, visibility control, permission tensor validation b, d, a Business type, semantic embedding, attachment fingerprint set Weak similarity deduplication, route experience matching, complexity calculation t, v, z Time limit characteristics, event version, downgrade flag SLA risk orchestration, concurrent conflict handling, and fault tolerance compensation.

[0042] When a strong idempotent index is not found, the system performs weak similarity duplication scoring. Weak similarity scoring compares not only the title but also the semantics of the description, attachment fingerprints, customer entity, business type, creation time window, initiator relationship, and external source relationship. Through this combined scoring, the system can identify scenarios where a customer first submits an attachment via email and then supplements the same information via a client application.

[0043] When the overall duplicate score D exceeds the first threshold, the system outputs a duplicate prompt to the management end or client; when it exceeds the second threshold, the system generates a merge candidate flag and requires the authorized processor to confirm; when it exceeds the third threshold and the source is automatically triggered by the system, the system blocks the creation of new work orders and appends external messages to the existing work orders.

[0044] In the merging scenario, the system retains the internal code and SLA template version of the master work order, writes the merged request as an external message node or source association node into the enterprise transaction graph, and records the merging basis, similarity sub-items, confirmer, confirmation time, and changes in visibility before and after the merge.

[0045] When the duplicate condition is not met, the work order creation module generates an internal work order code, source tag, owner account, client visibility identifier, initial internal status, initial external status, SLA template version, and initial audit event. The internal code can consist of a tenant identifier, business type, date sequence, and random check digits to support cross-system tracing.

[0046] In step S104, the system writes the work order and related objects into the enterprise transaction graph. The enterprise transaction graph can be stored in either a graph database or a relational database, with relationships represented by edge tables. The graph's purpose is to create a unified view of relationships between work orders and personnel, roles, organizations, permissions, SLA templates, external messages, and report metrics.

[0047] The work order node records the title, business type, account to which it belongs, customer entity, internal status, external status, SLA template version, creation time, update time, and deletion identifier. The handler node records the user identifier, role, organization, current load, business experience, historical satisfaction rate, historical delinquency rate, scheduling status, and notification reachability.

[0048] The customer organization node records the customer entity, parent group, contract service level, tenant isolation label, and visibility scope. The attachment object node records the attachment fingerprint, sensitivity level, affiliated work order, download permissions, and anonymized viewing permissions. The audit event node records the event type, event version, operator, operating platform, timestamp, and data summary before and after the change.

[0049] Graph edge relationships are used to support routing and tracing. For example, historical engagement edges between a handler node and a customer organization node represent continuous service experience with the customer; experience edges between a handler node and a business type node represent the ability to handle similar matters; and source association edges between a work order node and an external message node represent the source of emails, customer service conversations, and process instances.

[0050] In step S105, the graph routing module first constructs a candidate handler set U. The candidate set can come from the default queue for business types, the customer's dedicated service team, historical handlers, process node responsible persons, supervisor-designated personnel, and the fallback handling queue. After the candidate set is generated, the system performs permission tensor verification on each candidate handler.

[0051] Permission tensor This is used to determine whether a candidate handler can view or process the target work order before routing. If a candidate handler has strong business capabilities but lacks the authority to view the customer entity or related objects, an insufficient permission penalty is added to their routing cost, and in severe cases, they are directly excluded from the candidate set.

[0052] Routing cost In This indicates the current workload of the candidate processor, which can be calculated from the number of unclosed work orders, the number of work orders to be processed today, and the estimated processing time. This indicates the distance between the candidate and the current work order semantics and organizational context; This indicates the current SLA risk value for the work order; This represents the experience coefficient of the candidate processor in business type b.

[0053] This item indicates penalties for organizational or conflict-of-interest situations, such as when a candidate handler has an avoidance relationship with the client or cross-regional service restrictions. This indicates the cost of switching from an existing processor to a candidate processor; This indicates the availability of scheduling for candidate processors and the degree of queue congestion; This indicates a penalty for insufficient permissions.

[0054] The system selects the candidate processor with the lowest routing cost and that passes the permission tensor validation as the current processor. If the cost difference among multiple candidate processors is less than a preset difference threshold, the system further sorts them according to historical satisfaction, recent idle time, continuous service relationship with the customer, success rate of processing the same business type, supervisor-assigned priority, and notification reachability.

[0055] The routing results include not only the current handler but also collaborating handlers and recipients of the copy. Collaborating handlers are used for matters requiring joint processing by multiple roles, while recipients of the copy are used for supervisor oversight, notification to account managers, or review of process nodes. A routing summary is written into the audit timeline to explain why the system selected that handler.

[0056] When all candidate handlers fail the permission tensor validation, the system will assign the work order to the fallback processing queue. This fallback queue can be handled by administrators, operations personnel, or permission configuration specialists. Simultaneously, the system generates an exception routing event, recording the reason for insufficient permissions, the number of candidate handlers, the failed permission dimensions, and suggested remedial actions.

[0057] In step S106, the status synchronization module processes work order lifecycle events. Internal and external statuses are stored separately. Internal statuses are used for fine-grained collaboration on the management side, while external statuses are used for simplified display on the client or employee side. The external side typically displays "pending acceptance," "accepted," and "completed," while the internal side can display "pending acceptance," "accepted," "completed," "rejected," "closed," "deleted," and "restored."

[0058] When any internal handler accepts a work order, the external status can be mapped to "accepted"; when the entire internal system closes the work order, the external status is mapped to "completed"; when an internal handler rejects the work order but the system successfully reroutes it, the external status remains unchanged to prevent the client from seeing the details of the internal reassignment.

[0059] The message status synchronization module generates version numbers for management terminal replies, client replies, edited replies, and attachment additions. When a new reply is added on the management terminal, a notification icon appears in the client's work order list and reply record; after the client views the reply, the corresponding unread status on the management terminal is updated to read. When a new reply is added on the client, a notification icon appears in the management terminal's work order list; after the management terminal views the reply, the notification icon is removed.

[0060] The alert identifier is linked to the reply version number, viewer, viewing time, viewing device, visibility range, and attachment permission verification result. If the person handling the request does not have attachment download permission, the system can display the reply body but hide sensitive attachments, and write the permission verification result to the audit event.

[0061] Event version conflict handling is used to resolve concurrent operations. For example, if a client clicks "complete" on the management side and then needs to supplement materials within a short period of time, the system determines whether it needs to be reopened, requires confirmation from the handler, or records the materials as supplemented after being closed, based on the event timestamp, event version number, state transition rules, and visibility rules.

[0062] When a client-side material replenishment event occurs before a management-side completion event, the system can require the current handler to reconfirm the replenished materials. When a management-side completion event occurs before a client-side material replenishment event, the system records the replenished materials as replenished after the work order was closed and prompts the user to reopen the work order. This process generates a conflict handling audit event.

[0063] Deletion and restoration events are handled using a logical deletion method. After a worker deletes a work order, the system does not physically delete the work order node, attachment object nodes, or parent-child relationship edges. Instead, it marks the deletion status on the corresponding nodes and edges. Users with auditing privileges can still view the deletion event, the reason for deletion, and the snapshot before deletion.

[0064] When an administrator restores a work order, the system generates a recovery event, recalculates external state, parent-child relationships, SLA risks, and visibility, and re-verifies permissions for associated attachments. This process satisfies the need for recovery from accidental deletion while preventing the deletion action from disrupting the audit chain.

[0065] In step S107, the SLA orchestration module calculates the risk value. TimePressure can be calculated based on the remaining percentage of the initial response deadline, processing deadline, and resolution deadline from the current time; Complexity can be calculated based on the number of attachments, the number of missing fields, the number of sub-work orders, the number of roles involved, and the semantic category.

[0066] Customer Level can be derived from Contract Service Level or Customer Service Level; Business Impact can be determined based on the number of affected organizations, business line scope, amount range, or process blockage level; Overdue Prob can be calculated based on the candidate's historical overdue rate and overdue status of similar matters.

[0067] The ChildBlock value is calculated based on the number of blocked child work orders, the remaining time of critical child work orders, and the number of failed child work order callbacks; the NotifyFail value is calculated based on the recent number of failures and current availability of channels such as in-system messages, instant messaging, email, and SMS; and the CallbackFail value is calculated based on the failure of write-back from the process system or third-party interfaces.

[0068] When the risk value exceeds the reminder threshold, the system generates a pending reminder and prioritizes low-intrusion channels; when it exceeds the expediting threshold, the system generates an instant messaging expediting reminder or an in-system highlight reminder; when it exceeds the escalation threshold, the system generates a supervisor escalation notification, report warning, and risk drill-down entry.

[0069] The notification degradation module maintains channel priority and availability. When the instant messaging interface is unavailable, the system marks the notification task as pending retry and switches to in-app message, email, or SMS based on channel priority. If all channels fail, the system writes the failure reason, number of retries, last failure time, notification recipient, and event validity period into the audit event.

[0070] Once the notification channels are restored, the system will decide whether to resend the notification based on the event's validity period to avoid disrupting the processing order due to expired reminders. For notifications that have exceeded their validity period, the system will retain the failure record but will no longer trigger intrusive reminders.

[0071] The parent-child work order module allows a parent work order to create multiple first-level child work orders. Each child work order has an independent handler, independent SLA, independent status, and independent audit timeline. Parent and child work orders are linked through parent-child relationship edges, risk aggregation edges, and blocking prompt edges, but child work orders do not directly modify each other's status.

[0072] The SLA risk of the parent work order can be aggregated based on the highest risk value of the child work orders, the average risk value of the child work orders, the number of blocked child work orders, the remaining time of critical child work orders, and the number of failed callbacks for child work orders. If a critical child work order reaches the escalation threshold, the parent work order report will synchronously display the reason for the blockage, but will not directly close or rewrite the status of other child work orders.

[0073] In a corporate client scenario, the system can create a parent work order for the entire group and corresponding sub-work orders for different client entities. Each sub-work order is only visible to its corresponding client entity, while the parent work order is only visible to users with group permissions, thus balancing cross-client collaboration and tenant isolation.

[0074] The audit timeline module provides information for each event. Record the update type, update fields, data before update, data after update, attachment summary, operator, operator terminal, timestamp, request source, permission verification result, SLA risk value, notification recipient, event version number, template version number, and external callback result.

[0075] The system generates a hash chain. ,in The hash of the previous event, This is a summary of the current event. For timestamps, For operator identification, This can be a random number or a sequence value. Hash chains are used to support historical detail snapshot playback, audit drill-down, tamper detection, and dispute resolution.

[0076] The report evaluation module can generate data such as the number of orders created, the number of orders closed, the average first response time, the average resolution time, the overdue rate, the number of reminders, the rate of duplicate orders, the workload of processing personnel, the number of notification failures, and audit drill-down data. Report indicator nodes establish drill-down relationships with specific work order nodes and audit event nodes.

[0077] When operations staff discover an increase in a handler's delinquency rate, they can access the detailed work order list from the report metrics, and then view the SLA risk curve and audit timeline for the specific work order. The system displays the input factors for each change in risk value, such as decreasing remaining time, sub-work order blockage, increased attachments, increased handler workload, changes in customer level, notification failure, or external callback failure.

[0078] By drilling down reports, operations staff can distinguish between issues related to personnel capabilities, process blockages, customer data supplementation, and notification channels, and adjust SLA templates, routing weights, candidate queues, or channel priorities accordingly.

[0079] S101-S102 Multi-source access, trusted verification, field extraction, subject association, SLA template matching Access record R0, unified work order vector X, completion task S103-S104 Strong idempotency judgment, weak similarity scoring, single-entry or merging, and graph writing. Work order node, similarity relationship, source association, initial audit event S105 Candidate handler construction, permission tensor verification, routing cost calculation, and secondary sorting. Current handler, collaborating handler, recipients of copy, route summary S106-S107 State mapping, message synchronization, event conflict handling, SLA risk and notification degradation External status, expedited sequence, escalation strategy, notification task, audit chain

[0080] If the same customer sends the same contract attachments via the public email system within ten minutes, the system generates a merge candidate based on attachment fingerprint similarity, title similarity, and customer entity consistency. If the customer or handler confirms the merge, the system retains the client's work order as the master work order, associates the email as an external message node with that work order, and writes it into the merge audit event.

[0081] The system reads the customer's contract service level, matches it with the SLA template, and determines the initial response timeframe to be two hours, the processing timeframe to be one business day, and the resolution timeframe to be three business days. The graph routing module queries the customer's historical handlers, contract performance experience, current load, and folder permissions to calculate the routing cost of candidate handlers.

[0082] If candidate processor A has high contract experience but is currently overloaded, and candidate processor B has moderate experience but is idle and has the client's organizational permissions, the system can select B as the current processor, and A as a co-processor or copy recipient, and record the sorting criteria in the routing summary.

[0083] In the public email correction implementation, the public email system receives a data correction email from a customer. The system extracts the subject title from the email subject, the reason for correction from the email body, matches the customer account with the sender's email address, and extracts the file fingerprint from the attachment. If the sender's email address is bound to two customer organizations, the system generates candidate customer entities and their confidence levels based on the email subject, historical email subjects, attachment headers, and the most recently associated work orders.

[0084] If the highest confidence level exceeds the autocomplete threshold, the system automatically associates the customer entity; if it is lower than the autocomplete threshold, the system creates a task to be completed and temporarily does not display the work order to prevent unauthorized visibility due to incorrect customer entities.

[0085] In the example of automatic order creation in the workflow system, the system automatically creates an order due to incomplete onboarding materials. The system generates a title and description based on the workflow instance number, node name, responsible person, and reason for failure, and designates the responsible person of the workflow node as one of the candidate handlers.

[0086] If the responsible person does not have the data permissions for the corresponding customer organization, the permission tensor validation will fail. The system will then add a permission deficiency penalty to the routing cost and select a person with the appropriate permissions and experience in processing onboarding materials instead. After the work order is closed, the system generates an external callback task to write the processing result back to the workflow system. If the callback fails, the system will retry according to the exponential backoff strategy and generate an external callback failure event.

[0087] In the batch import example, the management end imports multiple enterprise transaction requests at once through a table file. The system reads the table header mapping configuration, converts the table columns into multiple access records R0, and independently performs source verification, field extraction, subject association, SLA template matching, and idempotent deduplication for each row.

[0088] For cases where some rows have incomplete fields, the system will only mark the corresponding rows as "to be completed," without affecting the creation of other rows. After the batch import is complete, the system will output the number of successful imports, the number of failed imports, the number of rows to be completed, the number of duplicate candidates, and a detailed explanation of the reasons for failures, and will write the import batch number to the audit event of each work order.

[0089] In the notification degradation implementation, when the instant messaging interface is unavailable, the SLA orchestration module will not discard the reminder event, but will mark the notification task as pending retry and switch to in-app message, email, or SMS based on channel priority. If all notification channels fail, the system will write the failure reason, number of retries, last failure time, notification recipient, and event validity period into the audit event.

[0090] In the permission tensor implementation, the same work order may simultaneously appear in the contract folder, customer view, and risk report drill-down list. Function permissions can be unioned to allow users to access from multiple entry points, but data visibility, tenant isolation, and attribution account constraints are intersectioned to ensure that users do not violate customer subject isolation due to having permission for a particular menu entry point.

[0091] In an explainable routing implementation, the system records a ranking summary of candidate processors. This ranking summary may include the candidate processor's identifier, whether they passed permission verification, load score, experience score, SLA risk impact, organizational conflict penalty, queue congestion level, and final routing cost. The ranking summary is not displayed to external devices; management devices can view it within their authorized scope.

[0092] In a fault-tolerant implementation, when the semantic encoding service is unavailable, the system can degenerate to generating business type candidates using keyword matching and rule classification; when the graph service is unavailable, the system can use the most recent contact, customer organization mapping, and role queue in the relational database for temporary routing; when the SLA risk model is unavailable, the system can calculate the basic risk value based on the deadline, customer level, and business type.

[0093] All work orders generated during the downgrade period are marked with a downgrade processing identifier. Once the relevant services are restored, the system can recalculate semantic vectors, graph relationships, and risk values, and write the recalculated results into the audit event, ensuring that the downgrade processing does not disrupt subsequent traceability.

[0094] This invention also provides an enterprise transaction work order management device. The device includes an access standardization module, an idempotent deduplication module, a work order creation module, a graph routing module, an SLA orchestration module, a status synchronization module, a permission calculation module, a parent-child work order module, an audit timeline module, and a report evaluation module.

[0095] The access standardization module is used to adapt to requests from multiple sources, generating access records R0 and unified work order vectors X. This module may include a source trust verification unit, a field extraction unit, a subject association unit, a text encoding unit, an attachment fingerprint unit, an SLA template matching unit, and a completion task unit.

[0096] The idempotent deduplication module maintains strong idempotent indexes and weak similarity scoring indexes, and outputs creation, merging, association, confirmation prompts, or blocking results for creating work orders. The work order creation module generates the internal code, source tag, owner account, client visibility identifier, status, SLA template version, and initial audit event for each work order.

[0097] The graph routing module is used to maintain the enterprise transaction graph and calculate the routing cost for candidate handlers. This module can read handler load, business experience, organizational affiliation, historical satisfaction, scheduling status, queue congestion level, and permission tensor verification results, and output the current handler, collaborating handlers, copied recipients, and route summary.

[0098] Access Standard Module Adapt to requests from multiple sources, extract fields, and generate a unified work order vector. R0, X, Complete the task Idempotent deduplication module Perform strong idempotency judgment and weak similarity scoring Create, merge, associate, or block results Graph Routing Module Processor selection is based on graph, permission tensor, and routing cost. Current handler, collaborating handler, route summary SLA orchestration module Calculate risk values ​​and trigger alerts, reminders, escalations, and downgrade notifications. Expedition sequence, escalation strategy, notification task Audit Timeline Module Record event summaries and form a hash chain Historical snapshots, audit hashes, and replay data

[0099] The permission calculation module is used to perform data permission, function permission, object permission, and attachment permission verification based on permission tensors. The parent-child work order module is used to maintain the first-level parent-child work order relationship, blocking dependencies, and risk aggregation. The audit timeline module is used to record event summaries, field differences, attachment summaries, operators, permission verification results, SLA risk values, notification objects, event version numbers, and external callback results, forming a hash chain.

[0100] The report evaluation module is used to generate data such as the number of orders created, the number of orders closed, the average first response time, the average resolution time, the overdue rate, the number of reminders, the rate of duplicate orders, the workload of the processing staff, the number of notification failures, and audit drill-down data, allowing managers to access specific work orders and specific audit events from the indicators.

[0101] This invention also provides a computer device, including at least one processor and at least one memory. When a program stored in the memory is executed by the processor, it can implement the method steps of any of the above embodiments. The computer device may be a server, a cloud service node, an enterprise internal business platform, a process engine node, a message queue consumer node, or a management application server.

[0102] This invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a processor-executable program. When executed by a processor, the program implements the aforementioned enterprise transaction work order management method. The storage medium includes, but is not limited to, a hard disk, a portable hard disk, a read-only memory, a random access memory, flash memory, an optical disk, or other media capable of storing program code.

[0103] It should be noted that the step numbers in this invention are used to describe the processing logic and do not necessarily limit the execution order. For steps with dependencies, they should be executed according to the dependencies; for steps that can be executed in parallel, such as source verification, field extraction, attachment fingerprint calculation, semantic encoding, and SLA template matching, they can be executed in parallel or asynchronously.

[0104] In one data structure embodiment, the access record R0 can be stored in an immutable record table with fields including record_id, source_type, source_request_id, request_hash, raw_payload_digest, actor_id, tenant_id, receive_time, trust_status, and isolation_status. The immutable record table is append-only and does not overwrite, used to reconstruct the source request in subsequent disputes.

[0105] In one implementation of the work order master table, the work order node can store ticket_id, customer_id, business_type, owner_account, internal_state, external_state, sla_template_version, visibility_scope, delete_flag, current_assignee, and last_event_version. The edge tables associated with the work order master table store ticket_id, edge_type, target_type, target_id, edge_version, and edge_payload.

[0106] In one implementation of an audit event table, event records may include event_id, ticket_id, event_type, event_version, before_digest, after_digest, operator_id, operator_terminal, permission_result, risk_value, notify_target, external_callback_result, and hash_value. before_digest and after_digest are used to avoid storing too much sensitive plaintext directly in the audit chain while retaining the ability to verify differences.

[0107] In one implementation of permission caching, the permission tensor Caching can be tiered by user, operation type, and object category. Role permissions and functional permissions change less frequently, so a longer cache period can be used; folders, views, owner accounts, and tenant isolation constraints change more frequently, so a short-term cache or event-driven invalidation mechanism can be used.

[0108] When a permission configuration changes, the system may generate a permission version number permission_version, and write this version number into subsequent work order events. If historical snapshot playback occurs after the permission change, the system may restore the permission judgment basis at that time according to the permission_version in the audit event, so as to avoid misjudging the legality of historical operations with the current permissions.

[0109] In an embodiment of deduplication parameter configuration, different service types may adopt different weights. For example, the weight of attachment fingerprint similarity and customer subject consistency is increased for contract change items, the weight of title similarity and description semantic similarity is increased for consultation items, and the weight of process instance identifier and node name consistency is increased for process exception items.

[0110] For the threshold of weak similarity duplicate scoring, the system may set a first threshold T1, a second threshold T2 and a third threshold T3, where T1<T2<T3. T1 is used for low-risk prompting, T2 is used for generating merge candidates, and T3 is used for blocking order creation in the automatic source end scenario. The thresholds may be jointly determined by the service type template, customer level and source end credibility.

[0111] In an embodiment of manual confirmation, a merge candidate needs to be confirmed by a processor with merge permission. The confirmation interface may display the main work order, candidate work order, similarity sub-items, attachment summary, customer subject, service type, creation time and source end. After confirmation, the system performs graph edge relationship merging, external message appending, SLA risk recalculation and audit event appending.

[0112] If the processor rejects merging, the system retains two independent work orders, and writes a similar but unmerged relationship between the two. When counting the duplicate candidate rate in subsequent reports, merged duplicates, manually rejected duplicates and system-blocked duplicates may be distinguished, so as to facilitate the optimization of thresholds and weights.

[0113] In an embodiment of routing weight learning, the routing weights alpha, beta, gamma, lambda, mu, eta, rho and sigma may be configured by an administrator, or may be updated periodically according to historical processing results. The update basis may include closing duration, customer satisfaction, rework times, overdue status, supervisor reassign times, and active rejection times of the processor.

[0114] To prevent the routing model from excessively following short-term fluctuations, the system may set a weight update window and upper and lower limit constraints. For example, if the processor has an excessively high load in the most recent day, the long-term experience coefficient thereof will not be directly reduced, but and affect the current routing; long-term multiple overdues will affect OverdueProb and the service experience score.

[0115] In one SLA template version embodiment, the template includes initial response time limit, processing time limit, resolution time limit, reminder threshold, follow-up threshold, escalation threshold, channel priority, holiday rules, and customer level rules. After the template is updated, the system can perform an impact assessment on unclosed work orders to determine whether to recalculate the risk value or retain the original template version.

[0116] If the customer service level is upgraded, the system can apply the new template to unclosed work orders and record the template change event; if the service level is downgraded, to avoid adverse consequences for customers, the system can apply the new template only to newly created work orders, while retaining the original template version for existing work orders. These strategies can be configured through template activation rules.

[0117] In one implementation of a notification task, the notification task includes notify_id, ticket_id, event_id, channel, priority, expire_time, retry_count, last_error, delivery_status, and fallback_channel. The notification task is bound to an audit event, making each reminder, reminder, escalation, and downgrade traceable.

[0118] The availability of notification channels can be determined by heartbeat detection, recent failure rate, and external interface return codes. When the failure rate of a channel exceeds the channel circuit breaker threshold, the system will no longer prioritize that channel for a preset period of time, but will directly use the next level channel, and gradually increase the volume after the channel recovers.

[0119] In one message editing implementation, when a user edits a sent reply, the system does not overwrite the original reply but generates a new version. The client can display only the latest version, while the audit timeline retains the old version's summary, editor, editing time, and reason for editing. If the editing involves deleting or replacing attachments, attachment permissions and attachment fingerprints must be recalculated.

[0120] In one external callback implementation, the workflow system or a third-party system requires a write-back of the result after a work order is closed. The system generates a callback task carrying the work order code, processing result, closure time, handler identifier, publicly available summary, and signature summary. If the callback fails, the system retryes according to an exponential backoff strategy and generates a callback failure risk item after reaching the maximum number of retries.

[0121] In one client visibility implementation, a work order submitted by a client can be visible immediately after creation, or it can be visible after the subject confirmation and permission verification are completed. For work orders where the client subject is uncertain, the attachments are highly sensitive, or the source credibility is insufficient, the system can first put them into an internal temporary storage state, and then display them externally after they are completed or manually confirmed.

[0122] In one embodiment of attachment anonymization, the attachment object can simultaneously store the original attachment reference, the anonymized attachment reference, and a text summary. Users with download permissions can access the original attachment; users with only viewing permissions can access the anonymized attachment or summary; users without attachment permissions can only see the attachment existence prompt and the reason for insufficient permissions.

[0123] In one implementation of parent-child work order blocking, the parent work order sets a critical child work order identifier. When a critical child work order is incomplete, the parent work order cannot be automatically closed; when a non-critical child work order is incomplete but does not affect overall delivery, the parent work order can be closed while retaining follow-up tracking of the incomplete child work order. This strategy is determined by the business type template.

[0124] In one cross-tenant isolation implementation, the parent work order and each sub-customer work order use different visibility tags. The parent work order can summarize the processing progress of multiple customer entities, but sub-customers can only view the content of their own sub-work orders. When drilling down reports, the system displays summary indicators or detailed work orders according to user permissions to prevent cross-customer data leakage.

[0125] In one audit playback embodiment, the system reconstructs the work order status, handler, SLA risk value, attachment list, message read status, and external callback status in chronological order based on the audit event chain. If the hash of a certain event cannot be matched with the hash of a subsequent event... The system matches and flags audit chain anomalies and generates suspected tampering events.

[0126] In one report optimization embodiment, the system calculates the duplicate order creation rate, manual merging and confirmation rate, automatic blocking rate, route reassignment rate, insufficient permission route rate, notification failure rate, and SLA overdue rate. Administrators can adjust template thresholds, route weights, candidate queues, and notification channel priorities based on these metrics.

[0127] In one security implementation, the system uses timestamps, random numbers, and signature digests to prevent replay of API source requests; it verifies email source requests using unique email identifiers, sender domains, sender binding relationships, and attachment scanning results; and it verifies page-side requests using login status, replay protection tokens, and source IP addresses. All verification results are written into the source trustworthiness score q.

[0128] In one deployment embodiment, the access standardization module can be deployed as an API service, the idempotent deduplication module can be deployed as a storage service with a unique index, the graph routing module can be deployed as a graph query service, the SLA orchestration module can be deployed as a scheduled task and event consumer, and the audit timeline module can be deployed as an append-only log service. The modules communicate with each other via message queues, exchanging ticket_id and event_id.

[0129] In a high-availability implementation, when a message queue experiences a delay, the work order creation module can still complete the core work order creation and write the initial audit event. SLA orchestration and notification tasks are executed as compensation after the queue recovers. During compensation execution, the system calculates the risk value based on the event timestamp rather than the compensation execution time, avoiding risk assessment distortion caused by delays.

[0130] In one data consistency implementation, updates to the work order master table, writing to graph edges, and appending audit events can employ local transactions, transactional messages, or idempotent compensation mechanisms. If a graph edge write fails, the system records the task to be compensated and restricts automatic routing actions that depend on that edge relationship until compensation is completed.

[0131] In one boundary scenario embodiment, when the same request simultaneously meets the conditions of strong idempotency hit and weak similarity high score, the system prioritizes the strong idempotency result; when the strong idempotency is not hit but the weak similarity scores of multiple candidate work orders are close, the system outputs a candidate list and requires manual confirmation, instead of automatically merging them into any work order.

[0132] In one interpretable presentation embodiment, the external terminal only displays processing status and progress that are understandable to the customer, while the management terminal displays route summaries, risk factors, notification records, and audit timelines within the scope of its permissions. This layered presentation protects internal processing logic and personnel privacy while also meeting the needs of internal accountability and operational optimization within the enterprise.

[0133] In one embodiment of model degradation recovery, after the semantic encoding service is restored, the system can scan unclosed work orders where the degradation processing identifier z is true, regenerate semantic embeddings, and recalculate weak similarity relationships. If a high similarity candidate is found, the system does not directly roll back the established work orders, but instead generates a post-merge suggestion and records the source of the supplementary calculation.

[0134] In one embodiment of historical data migration, old system work orders can be converted into access records R0 through a batch import terminal, and a source request identifier can be generated based on the old system number. The historical replies, attachments, and handlers of the migration work orders can be converted into audit events and graph edge relationships, enabling the system of the present invention to continue routing and report analysis of old data.

[0135] In one test and verification embodiment, examples such as repeated page submissions, repeated email and client submissions, automatic process retry, partial batch import failures, insufficient permissions of the handler, notification channel failures, parent-child work order blocking, and concurrent supplementary materials can be constructed to verify whether idempotent deduplication, permission tensors, SLA risk orchestration, notification degradation, and event version conflict handling are output according to preset rules.

[0136] The above embodiments demonstrate that this invention does not simply aggregate multiple entry points into a single work order table, but rather constructs a mutually supportive technical system through a unified work order vector, enterprise transaction graph, permission tensor, SLA risk value, and hash chain auditing. This system can simultaneously address standardization, dispatch, time limits, permissions, and traceability issues in complex enterprise transactions.

[0137] The above embodiments are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention. Those skilled in the art can combine, substitute, or modify the above embodiments without departing from the concept of the present invention, and all such combinations, substitutions, or modifications should fall within the protection scope defined by the claims of the present invention. Attached Figure Description

[0138] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the overall process of the enterprise transaction work order management method provided in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0139] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram illustrating multi-source access, field standardization, and unified work order vector generation provided in this embodiment of the invention.

[0140] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of enterprise transaction graph, permission tensor, and graph routing relationship provided in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0141] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the SLA risk calculation, reminder, expediting, escalation, and notification downgrade orchestration provided in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0142] Figure 5 This diagram illustrates the internal and external state mapping, message read / unread synchronization, and event version conflict handling provided in this embodiment of the invention.

[0143] Figure 6 This is a schematic diagram of the device module structure provided in an embodiment of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for managing enterprise work orders based on multi-terminal collaboration and SLA intelligent orchestration, characterized in that, include: S101, Receive enterprise transaction requests sent by at least one source end, the source end including at least one of management end, client end, employee end, customer service system, public email system, process system, batch import end and third-party interface; S102, Convert the enterprise transaction request into access record R0, and perform source trust verification, field extraction, customer subject association, business type identification, text semantic encoding, attachment fingerprint calculation, permission context completion, SLA template matching, external association feature extraction and idempotent feature generation on access record R0 to obtain a unified work order vector X; S103, Perform strong idempotent judgment and weak similarity duplication scoring based on the unified work order vector X, and output the merging, association, prompt confirmation or block the creation of the work order when the preset duplication condition is met, and create a work order and generate the work order internal code, source tag, owner account, client visibility identifier, initial internal state, initial external state, SLA template version and initial audit event when the preset duplication condition is not met; S104, Transfer the work order to The process involves writing related handlers, roles, customer organizations, business types, folders, views, SLA templates, process nodes, external messages, attachment objects, notification tasks, report metrics, and audit events into the enterprise transaction graph; S105, under the constraint of permission tensors, calculating the routing cost by combining handler load, business experience, organizational relationships, historical processing effects, SLA risk values, handler switching costs, queue congestion levels, and insufficient permission penalties, and determining the current handler, collaborating handlers, and copied recipients; S106, responding to work order creation, reply, editing, transfer, closing, deletion, restoration, creation of sub-work orders, field updates, external message association, external callbacks, and permission change events, performing internal and external state mapping, message state synchronization, parent-child dependency updates, permission verification, event version conflict handling, and audit timeline recording; S107, generating reminder sequences, follow-up sequences, supervisor upgrade notifications, notification downgrade tasks, and operational report metrics based on SLA risk values, notification channel status, event versions, and upgrade strategies.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The unified work order vector X is represented as: Where s is the source code, c is the customer organization or customer entity code, b is the business type set, o is the initiator identity, d is the semantic embedding of title, detailed description, customer service conversation summary, email body or process failure reason, a is the attachment fingerprint set, t is the features of deadline, first call time limit, processing time limit and resolution time limit, q is the source credibility, p is the permission context, m is the idempotency and duplicate order creation features, r is the external message, process instance or batch import batch association feature, v is the event version and status version feature, z is the downgrade processing identifier; the numerical features in the unified work order vector X are normalized, the enumerated features are encoded, and stored together with the generation time and template version.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The source trust verification includes: for page-based requests, verifying login status, account status, session validity, anti-replay token, and source IP; for API-based requests, verifying API whitelist, application key, signature timestamp, signature digest, callback address, and request replay window; for email-based requests, verifying sender domain, sender binding relationship, email unique identifier, email header signature, and attachment security scan results; and for batch import requests, verifying importer permissions, header template version, row-level data integrity, batch import uniqueness, and single-row error isolation rules.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The field extraction includes mapping source-end fields to title, detailed description, attachment, creator, creation time, account, customer entity, business type, deadline, priority, visibility, external message identifier, process instance identifier, and batch line number; When a field is missing, candidate completion values ​​are generated based on the source type, account organization permissions, historical similar work orders, email context, process node context, attachment text summary, and customer subject candidate relationship. The missing field, candidate completion value, completion confidence, suggested completion person, and completion time limit are written into the completion task.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The strong idempotency determination is based on a strong idempotency index formed by the source request identifier, request hash, source encoding, external message identifier, process instance identifier, and batch import line number; the weak similarity duplication score is calculated based on title similarity, description semantic similarity, attachment fingerprint similarity, customer subject consistency, business type consistency, creation time window, initiator relationship, and external source relationship to calculate a comprehensive duplication score.

6. The method according to claim 5, characterized in that, The comprehensive repeat score D is configured as follows: Each weight is determined by the business type template; when D exceeds the first threshold, a duplicate prompt is output; when D exceeds the second threshold, a merge candidate flag is generated; when D exceeds the third threshold and the source is automatically triggered by the system, the creation of a new work order is blocked and the external message is appended to the existing work order.

7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The enterprise transaction graph includes work order nodes, handler nodes, role nodes, customer organization nodes, business type nodes, folder nodes, view nodes, SLA template nodes, process nodes, external message nodes, attachment object nodes, notification task nodes, report indicator nodes, and audit event nodes; the edge relationships of the enterprise transaction graph include creation, processing, collaboration, copy, parent-child, visibility, archiving, upgrading, similarity, dependency, historical participation, source association, attachment ownership, template application, notification delivery, permission constraints, and report drill-down relationships.

8. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The permission verification passed the permission tensor. P u a o Implementation, where u is the user, a is the operation, and o is the work order object, attachment object, audit event object, or report object; P u a o It is jointly determined by the user role matrix, folder or view data range matrix, function permission matrix, ownership account constraint, client visibility constraint, tenant isolation label, deletion status constraint, parent-child work order inheritance constraint, attachment sensitivity level constraint, and historical snapshot viewing constraint.

9. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Determining the current processor includes constructing a candidate processor set U and calculating the routing cost for each candidate processor u. The candidate processor with the lowest routing cost and that passes the permission tensor verification is selected as the current processor.

10. The method according to claim 9, characterized in that, When the difference in routing costs among multiple candidate handlers is less than a preset difference threshold, a secondary sorting is performed based on historical satisfaction, recent idle time, continuous service relationship with the customer, success rate of processing the same business type, supervisor-assigned priority, customer service level, recent overdue rate, and current notification reachability. When none of the candidate handlers pass the permission tensor validation, the work order is assigned to the fallback processing queue, an abnormal routing event is generated, and the reason for insufficient permissions, the number of candidate handlers, and the fallback queue identifier are written into the audit timeline.

11. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The SLA risk value The system calculates the following parameters: initial response time, processing time, resolution time, current remaining time, work order complexity, customer level, scope of business impact, most recent response time, historical overdue probability of the handler, current workload of the handler, notification delivery status, parent-child work order dependency relationship, and external callback status. When the SLA risk value exceeds the reminder threshold, a pending reminder is generated; when it exceeds the expediting threshold, an instant messaging expediting is generated; and when it exceeds the escalation threshold, a supervisor escalation notification and report alert are generated.

12. The method according to claim 11, characterized in that, The SLA risk value Where TimePressure is the time pressure value, Complexity is the complexity value, CustomerLevel is the customer level value, Impact is the business impact range value, OverdueProb is the historical overdue probability of the handler, ChildBlock is the child work order blocking value, NotifyFail is the notification failure value, and CallbackFail is the external callback failure value.

13. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The internal and external state mapping includes: displaying three states—pending acceptance, accepted, and completed—on the external end, and displaying seven states—pending acceptance, accepted, completed, rejected, closed, deleted, and restored—on the internal end; the states of pending acceptance, accepted, completed, and rejected are stored independently according to the processor dimension. When any internal processor's state changes to accepted, the external state is mapped to accepted; when the overall internal state changes to closed, the external state is mapped to completed.

14. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The event version conflict handling includes maintaining a status version number, response version number, attachment version number, external message version number, and SLA template version number for each work order; When a client-side material replenishment event and a management-side completion event occur concurrently within a preset time window, the final state is determined based on the event timestamp, event version number, state transition rules, and visibility rules, and the conflict resolution result is written into the audit timeline.

15. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The message status synchronization includes: when the management terminal adds or edits a reply, a reminder identifier is generated in the reply record and work order list on the client, and the corresponding unread status on the management terminal is updated to read after the client views the reply; when the client adds or edits a reply, a reminder identifier is generated in the reply record and work order list on the management terminal, and the reminder identifier is removed after the client views the reply; the reminder identifier is bound to the reply version number, the viewer, the viewing time, the viewing terminal, the visibility range, and the attachment permission verification result.

16. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The creation of sub-work orders includes generating first-level sub-work orders in response to the sub-work order creation instruction of the parent work order, so that one parent work order corresponds to multiple sub-work orders and one sub-work order corresponds to only one parent work order; the parent work order and the sub-work order remain independent of each other except for the parent-child relationship, risk aggregation relationship and blocking prompt relationship; the SLA risk value of the parent work order is aggregated based on the highest risk value of the sub-work order, the average risk value of the sub-work order, the number of blocked sub-work orders, the remaining time of the key sub-work orders, and the number of sub-work order callback failures.

17. An enterprise transaction work order management device based on multi-terminal collaboration and SLA intelligent orchestration, characterized in that, It includes an access standardization module, an idempotent deduplication module, a work order creation module, a graph routing module, an SLA orchestration module, a status synchronization module, a permission calculation module, a parent-child work order module, an audit timeline module, and a report evaluation module; each module is used to execute the method described in any one of claims 1 to 16.

18. A computer device, characterized in that, It includes at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the memory stores a program that, when executed by the processor, implements the method according to any one of claims 1 to 16.

19. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The storage medium stores a processor-executable program, which, when executed by the processor, is used to implement the method according to any one of claims 1 to 16.

Images