What the documents look like
On-demand retail store fulfillment processes online orders by the minute, which separates it from periodic stocktaking and loss prevention. The main data sources are Douyin on-demand retail, the Meituan or JD Daojia back office, store inventory, and rider tracking. The daily documents are instant orders, picking lists, out-of-stock reports, and delivery exception forms. Product information and selection questions are answered against these documents. Errors surface as delivery timeout compensation, false-delivery penalties, and customer refunds. Document updates occur at minute level, per order. This page does not derive batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms from that frequency.
For this task, the relevant document types carry different states. An instant order holds the order number and the goods requested. A picking list carries line items with product names and quantities. An out-of-stock report may exist in an unsigned state. A delivery exception form records a delivery problem. None of these documents, by itself, establishes that picking is complete or that delivery status has been returned. The workflow routing step has to keep those states distinct.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node and the User Selection node are both user interaction nodes. When either node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. Form Input collects required information and passes the submitted values to later nodes. User Selection judges the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch.
Collected information must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, 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 a later process. Retrieval and form submission do not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The submitted material text from a supermarket home-delivery store picker reads: "Instant order A-204; line 3 of the picking list is chilled yogurt 200 grams, two units; store inventory shows it can be picked; the out-of-stock report has not been signed." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This order has completed picking and returned delivery status." The source text states only that inventory can be picked and that the report is unsigned. It does not state that picking is complete or that status was returned. The draft sentence is not supported.
This sample is a paper exercise. It is not a real customer record, and no test, deployment, approval, or refund occurred.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting value | Comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input required fields | Order number, product name, quantity | Compare field by field against the picking list |
| User Selection branch | "Yes" branch connects to downstream retrieval | Verify branch connections one by one |
| Collected information handoff | Pass to later retrieval or judgment node | Compare node input against node output |
| Interaction state recording | Enters interaction state after trigger | Observe the conversation state change |
| External operation separation | Order write connects to a separate business interface | Confirm whether a later process is connected |
| Empty-result handling | Paper input [] | Check whether the downstream design handles an empty result |
The values in this table are hypothetical trial starting points for this page. They were chosen so that each field can be compared against the picking list line by line. They are not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as authorized execution. Input: the submission action in the sample above. Comparison object: the rule that order writes require a separate business interface. Observable result: no write record appears after submission.
- Connecting the User Selection branch incorrectly. Input: the sample choice "yes." Comparison object: the branch connections. Observable result: a branch other than the "yes" branch executes.
- Treating retrieval as permission isolation. Input: the sample order number. Comparison object: the division between retrieval and authorization. Observable result: a retrieval return does not equal authorization for that order.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence. Compare "inventory can be picked, report unsigned" against "completed picking and returned status." If the draft sentence contains facts not stated in the source, the condition is not met.
- Input the sample required form fields. Compare the submitted information against the input of the later retrieval node. If a field is missing or not passed, the condition is not met.
- Input the paper value []. Compare whether the downstream design handles an empty result. If execution proceeds directly into a write branch, the condition is not met.
These are expected checks only. They were not actually run. Where the source text does not state a fact, that fact remains unknown; a pending report is not a completed report, and a retrieval return is not an authorization.