What the documents look like
Omnichannel stock transfer work moves goods between stores and warehouses. It differs from member and private-domain marketing operations, which handle outreach rather than physical inventory movement. The working materials for this category are transfer requests, inventory snapshots, store shortage lists and transfer logistics notes. Their sources include ERP inventory, store POS, e-commerce orders and WMS. These materials determine what a product selection question must answer: whether an item can be transferred, from where, in what quantity, and along which route.
Material updates occur daily or weekly. This page treats that cadence only as a statement about material timeliness and does not derive batch synchronization, full synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms from it.
The input to product selection questions is the fields and status values inside those documents. The output is an answer about transfer route and transferable quantity. Workflow routing connects the user question, material retrieval, conditional judgment and human confirmation into an ordered execution sequence.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node is a user interaction node. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and the workflow continues after the user completes the interaction. Required information is collected and passed to downstream nodes after submission. The user selection node is also a user interaction node with the same interaction-state behavior; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and both trigger execution.
A retrieval hit on a material only shows that the material is semantically related to the question. Retrieval does not constitute authorization, and a similarity setting carries no permission or entity-isolation duty. A transfer request sitting in a pending-review state does not show that the operator lacks permission; the pending-review state itself is not approval. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or downstream process. Interaction nodes do not perform those actions.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads "transfer request T-2031, requesting party is the East China region store warehouse keeper, object is product A transferred from the central warehouse to store 12, quantity 40 units, request date 4 March, status pending review." A second sentence reads "inventory snapshot S-77 shows product A has 120 units available at the central warehouse, snapshot date 4 March." The draft sentence under review is "transfer request T-2031 has been approved, and product A can immediately be transferred out of the central warehouse in a quantity of 40 units." Checking that draft against the material, the material supports only that the request was submitted and is pending review. Neither approval nor immediate transferability is supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Purpose on this page | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect required fields such as transfer request number, product and quantity | After submission, compare the fields received by downstream nodes against the entered values |
| User selection node | Present a choice about transfer route or whether to continue | Verify the "yes" branch connection and execution one by one |
| Interaction state check | Confirm the conversation enters the interaction state when triggered | Observe the dialog hiding and the state recording behavior |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information explicitly to a downstream retrieval or judgment node | Compare each output against its input |
| External action separation | Order writes, document backfill and external synchronization connect to separate interfaces | Confirm the interaction nodes do not carry these actions |
| Retrieval scope check | Confirm target materials fall inside the accessible retrieval scope | Record the gap for missing materials |
The table sets no global state-recording switch, specifies no submission count and gives no undocumented numeric value. For this exercise, the hypothetical starting point is three required fields on the form input node. The reason for choosing three is that request number, product and quantity form the smallest checkable set. The comparison object is the number and content of fields actually received by downstream nodes.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. The input is the question "can product A be transferred out," the comparison is between the returned materials and the operator's permissions, and the error occurs when related materials are treated as grounds for approval. The observable result is an approval conclusion in the answer that the materials do not state.
- Writing a pending-review status as approved. The input is the request in the hypothetical sample, the comparison is between the request status field and the wording of the draft sentence, and the draft is inconsistent with the material when it says "has been approved." The observable result is a mismatch between the draft wording and the source status value.
- Assigning external writes to an interaction node. The input is the process design after form submission, the comparison is between node responsibility and order-write or document-backfill actions, and placing writes inside the interaction node is a division-of-labor error. The observable result is an interaction node connected directly to an external write operation in the flow diagram.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence in the hypothetical sample, input the request source text and the draft sentence, and compare the two values "pending review" and "has been approved." The condition is satisfied only when the draft is changed to a status description consistent with the source. The expectation is that an unsupported approval statement is identified; no actual test is claimed.
- For the form input node, input one completion containing request number, product and quantity, and compare the fields received by downstream nodes against the entered values. The condition is satisfied only when the fields are complete and the values match. The expectation is correct handoff; first-hit or full-recall behavior is not guaranteed.
- For retrieval scope, input an explicit manual material list and compare whether the target material falls inside the accessible scope. The condition is satisfied only when the material is in scope. Missing materials are recorded as gaps. An empty-result handoff can be checked against downstream design using a paper input of an empty list, without claiming that a fictional rule-based retrieval necessarily returns an empty list. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers only and exclude non-matching ones, recording what is actually observed.