What the documents look like
Fresh-food supplier claims pursue quality responsibility for goods on arrival. They sit apart from in-store natural shrinkage handling, which is a separate matter. The working data comes from the quality inspection system, WMS receiving records, supplier contracts and financial reconciliation. Daily documents include quality exception forms, photo evidence, deduction notices and claim reconciliation statements. Two update rhythms apply: each arriving batch, and monthly reconciliation. Fixing evidence, calculating deductions, and negotiating replenishment or compensation are the main time-consuming steps.
For product information and selection questions, workflow routing handles a specific sequence. A user submits a quality exception form number or a supplier name. The system then needs to ask the user for missing fields, offer branch options, and pass the collected values to later retrieval or judgment nodes. The Form Input node and the User Selection node carry this responsibility. Both are user interaction nodes. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Interaction nodes collect values. They do not grant authorization. A user entering a claim quantity, or choosing a replenishment or compensation branch, only produces input parameters for later nodes. Generating a deduction notice, writing back to a reconciliation statement, and synchronizing supplier system status all require a separate business interface or a later process. The interaction node itself does not perform these actions.
When retrieval results and interaction input reach a later judgment step together, retrieval does not act as a permission filter. A similarity score is used for ranking. It is not used to exclude unrelated suppliers or unauthorized records. A shared vector model is the precondition for a knowledge base and a query to be associated. Knowledge bases using different vector models cannot be associated together. When identifiers do not match, exclude those bases first and record what is actually observed.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: an inspector submits a quality exception form. The source text reads: "Supplier: Qinghe Produce; arriving batch: spinach, 12 March 2026; exception description: leaf wilting ratio approximately thirty percent; photo evidence: three images; deduction notice: not generated." A proposed draft sentence reads: "The system confirms the deduction notice has been issued and the supplier agrees to compensate." The pending request reads: "Please automatically initiate the compensation process to the supplier based on this exception form."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented basis or check method | Value and reason in this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Enters interaction state when triggered, collects required information, passes it to later nodes after submission | Collect exception form number, supplier, batch, exception description, photo count |
| User Selection node | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice | Offer two branches, replenishment and compensation |
| Required-field check | Documentation states required information is collected and passed on | Compare each submitted value against the later node's input parameters |
| Branch connection check | Documentation states the "yes" branch runs according to the user's choice | Verify each of the two branch connections and its target node |
| Output handover check | Documentation states information is passed to later nodes | Pass collected values explicitly to a retrieval or judgment node |
| External action separation | Documentation does not state that interaction nodes perform business writes | Mark deduction notice generation and reconciliation write-back as requiring a separate interface |
The photo count value of three in the sample comes from the exception form source text. It is a hypothetical starting point for this exercise, used to compare against the value received by a later node. It does not represent an official default. If a later node expects a numeric field, check type and range item by item. The documentation does not specify units or an upper limit.
Three common errors
- Treating interaction input as authorization. In the sample, the proposed draft sentence states the deduction notice has been issued, while the exception form source text states the deduction notice is not generated. The subject and field are the same, and the values are mutually exclusive, so the draft sentence is not supported by the source. A user selecting the compensation branch only means the option was selected. It does not mean a deduction was executed.
- Treating a retrieval score as a filter condition. Using a similarity threshold to exclude supplier records applies a ranking value to entity separation. The documentation does not describe that use. During a check, observe the returned records and the query identifier. Do not infer that unrelated records are necessarily excluded.
- Treating a pending review state as a negative conclusion. The sample request to automatically initiate a compensation process is in a pending state and lacks any authorization boundary statement. It cannot be used to conclude that the supplier refused compensation or that the process has started.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the sample exception form source text and the proposed draft sentence. Compare the deduction notice field: the source says not generated, the draft says issued. Same subject, same field, mutually exclusive values. Judge the draft sentence unsupported and record the gap.
- Enter the sample request to automatically initiate a compensation process to the supplier based on this exception form. Compare the action in the request against the interaction node's actual capability. The User Selection node only executes branch judgment. An external compensation action requires a separate interface. Judge the request to exceed this node's scope and keep it pending verification.
- Enter an empty-result handover sample: submit a paper input of [] to the retrieval node and observe whether the downstream judgment node follows an empty-value branch. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. If the downstream treats the empty value as "no exception," record that design difference.
All three checks address workflow routing within product information and selection questions. Inputs come from this page's hypothetical sample. The comparison is between source values and the draft or request values. The observable result is a mutually exclusive field, a scope overreach, or an empty-value branch difference. Nothing was actually executed, and conclusions remain pending verification.