What the documents look like
Regional dealer stock replenishment runs as a daily rolling order pattern. It differs from seasonal centralized ordering events, where demand is gathered into a single campaign. Here the document spine is a replenishment request, an inventory turnover sheet, an outbound delivery note, and a payment collection plan. Data arrives from dealer ERP systems, the brand ordering system, warehouse inventory, and sales receipts, with weekly and monthly update rhythms. In the product information and selection question-answering task, these materials serve two roles at once: they are the factual basis for selection judgements, and they are the reference text that interaction nodes collect values against during workflow routing.
The four document types carry different subjects, objects, states, and validity scopes. A replenishment request records the item and quantity a store or lower-tier dealer wants. An inventory turnover sheet reflects current stock and turnover condition. An outbound delivery note reflects a delivery that has already occurred. A payment collection plan states receivable arrangements. Routing must keep these apart. A retrieval hit is not authorization, and a collected form value is not execution.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the required information the user fills in and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node also enters an interaction state; after the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both behaviors are documented node behavior. No separate global state-recording switch is set here, and no submission count, automatic judgement, or snapshot guarantee is assumed.
In replenishment, product information and selection questions must first confirm the item, specification, quantity, and requesting entity before later retrieval or judgement steps run. Collected values must be explicitly passed to downstream retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes, and outputs must be compared item by item against inputs. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later process. Form collection alone does not constitute business verification, approval, or a database write. Retrieval fetches material; it does not carry authorization. A similarity setting cannot exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching libraries excluded, without running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below centers on one hypothetical drill sample. Hypothetical drill sample: a regional dealer back-office clerk submits a replenishment request on 10 March 2026. The source text reads: "Requesting entity: East China regional dealer; Item: Type A filter; Requested quantity: 120 units; Destination warehouse: East China Warehouse No. 1; Request date: 10 March 2026; Approval status is pending review." One draft sentence awaiting judgement reads: "The East China regional dealer Type A filter replenishment request has been approved and delivery can be arranged." In that draft sentence, "has been approved" and the source text's "Approval status is pending review" are different values of the same field, which forms a contradiction.
The starting point for this hypothetical trial is a side-by-side comparison of the replenishment request source text and the draft sentence. This starting point is chosen because the source text contains an approval status field that can be compared directly against the draft sentence. The comparison object is the approval status value for the same requesting entity, the same item, and the same request date.
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Link to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Enters interaction state on trigger; collects required information and passes it to later nodes | Collects item, quantity, and requesting entity fields |
| User Selection node | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice | Confirms entry into the selection comparison branch |
| Interaction state check | State recording is interaction node behavior; no separate global switch | Checks the waiting state after the replenishment request is submitted |
| Output handoff check | Collected information is explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes | Checks whether the draft sentence cites the request source text |
| External action split | Order writes, document backfill, and external synchronization need a separate interface or process | Delivery arrangement is not completed inside this page's routing |
Three common errors
- Treating "pending review" as approved. The input is the replenishment request source text "Approval status is pending review." The comparison object is the draft sentence "has been approved." The observable result is that the two take different values on the same field, which is a contradiction. Pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission and does not equal completed approval.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. The input is one entry returned by a product information retrieval. The comparison object is whether that entry states an approval or authorization status. The observable result is that the entry contains only a product description and no authorization field, so the retrieval result cannot stand in for approval.
- Treating a collected form value as already executed. The input is the item and quantity collected by the Form Input node. The comparison object is whether a downstream interface write or outbound record exists. The observable result is that only form values exist and no outbound delivery note exists, so form collection does not equal delivery execution.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: Input the replenishment request source text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical drill sample. Compare the approval status field for the same requesting entity, the same item, and the same request date. If the source text reads "pending review" and the draft sentence reads "has been approved," the draft sentence is judged unsupported and the evidence gap must be retained. The expected result is that the contradiction is identified and recorded as pending confirmation.
- Verification two: Input a retrieval result explicitly stated as empty, using the paper input [] to check the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream node has an explicit branch for handling an empty result. If the downstream still outputs a product selection conclusion, the empty-result handoff is not configured. The expected result is that the empty result is observed to be explicitly handled or the gap is recorded, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns empty.
- Verification three: Input one outbound delivery note draft and one payment collection plan. Compare whether the delivery note states a completed approval status and whether the collection plan states receivable arrangements. If the delivery note does not state an approval status, the delivery arrangement lacks a basis. The expected result is that the missing field is recorded, without fabricating authorization clauses and without claiming that delivery or collection has occurred.
This page addresses only regional dealer stock replenishment, product information and selection question-answering, and workflow routing. During operations handover, the authorization state of materials, actions, and requests must be tracked, and retrieval or form collection cannot be treated as authorized execution.