What the documents look like
Fresh fruit store procurement and product selection questions revolve around purchase orders, acceptance sheets, pesticide residue test reports, and loss records. Compared with convenience-store fresh food ordering, fruit procurement depends more on wholesale market conditions and grade-based acceptance, not on headquarters standard meal plans. Market prices and quotes change daily or per batch. A purchase order records product name, batch, quantity, and supplier quote; an acceptance sheet records arrival grade, piece count, and acceptance conclusion; a pesticide residue test report records sample, test item, and conclusion; a loss record records reported loss quantity and reason. These document fields are not uniform. The same batch of fruit may appear with different batch number formats across different documents, and product selection questions must handle exactly this kind of cross-document checking.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Workflow routing on this page solves one thing only: connecting the input, retrieval, interaction, and output of product data and selection questions into a checkable path. After the form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, collects required information, and passes that information to subsequent nodes after submission; the user selection node executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice. The interaction state is recorded by interaction nodes, and no separate global state recording switch is set. Retrieval results need to be clearly passed to subsequent judgment or interface nodes, comparing output and input item by item. Order writing, document backfill, and external state synchronization must connect to a business interface or subsequent process separately; retrieval and forms themselves do not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical exercise sample: a store fresh produce supervisor submits a paper handover request stating "Please confirm, based on the materials, the acceptance grade and pesticide residue test conclusion for product name 'Red Fuji Apple' batch A-0715, and arrange subsequent procurement accordingly." Two original excerpts are attached. The first is an acceptance sheet excerpt: "Product name: Red Fuji Apple; Batch: A-0715; Arrival date: July 15, 2025; Acceptance grade: Grade 1; Acceptance conclusion: Pass." The second is a pesticide residue test report excerpt: "Sample name: Red Fuji Apple; Sample batch: A-0715; Test item: Organophosphates; Test conclusion: Not detected." The draft sentence to be judged is "This batch has acceptance grade Grade 1 and pesticide residue not detected, so procurement may continue." The subject, object, state, and valid scope needed for judgment are all in the above original text; quote validity period, supply deadline, and procurement approval authority are not stated, which are evidence gaps.
Configuration and implementation checks
Configuration centers on the above sample and lists only officially described settings or implementation check items related to this function and the main task. Where values are needed, they are explicitly stated as the starting point for this hypothetical trial.
| Configuration item | Setting or check item for this trial | Basis and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Required fields set to product name, batch, request item | Documentation states required information is collected and passed to subsequent nodes; check whether fields enter downstream after submission |
| User selection node | Branch set to "yes/no", check branch connections item by item | Documentation states the "yes" branch executes after user selection; check whether connections correspond to the question |
| Interaction state | Enters interaction state after triggering and records workflow state | Documentation states interaction nodes record state; check whether the conversation enters interaction state |
| Output handoff | Clearly pass collected information to retrieval or judgment nodes | Documentation states information is passed to subsequent nodes; compare output and input fields item by item |
| Retrieval scope | Limited to purchase orders, acceptance sheets, test reports, loss records | Starting point for this hypothetical trial; compare item by item with the request to confirm hit scope |
| External operations | Order writing, document backfill, state synchronization connect separately | Documentation states a business interface or subsequent process must be connected separately; check whether downstream implementation is declared |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorized execution. In the above sample, retrieving the acceptance sheet and test report only shows the materials exist; procurement approval authority is not stated. The wrong approach is to directly trigger purchase order writing based on retrieval results. The check input is the draft sentence "procurement may continue," the comparison object is whether the original text states approval authority, and the observation is that the original text does not state it, so an evidence gap should be recorded.
- Treating interaction state as a global switch. Form input and user selection nodes enter interaction state and record workflow state after triggering, and the documentation does not state that a global state recording switch exists. The wrong approach is to configure a global state switch and claim it controls all nodes. The check input is the node configuration, the comparison object is the documented behavior of interaction nodes, and the observation is that state is recorded only when interaction nodes trigger.
- Treating values in different fields as directly contradictory. In the sample, the acceptance sheet batch is written "A-0715" and the test report batch is written "A-0715," so they match; if one material writes "A0715," that is a formatting difference, and the identifier must be checked first before judging. The wrong approach is to judge records as conflicting based only on different formatting. The check input is the batch field in the two materials, the comparison object is the value of the same field, and the observation is that the formatting differs but the identifier needs further checking.
How to verify the setup
- Input the acceptance sheet original text and the draft sentence "This batch has acceptance grade Grade 1 and pesticide residue not detected, so procurement may continue" from the above sample. Compare whether the grade and test conclusion in the draft sentence match the original text in the same subject, same batch, and same field. The original text states Grade 1 and not detected, so the draft sentence is supported within that scope; the procurement approval part is not stated and should be marked as pending verification.
- Input the handover request and retrieval scope settings from the above sample. Compare whether the request item falls within the four material types: purchase orders, acceptance sheets, test reports, and loss records, and observe whether retrieval returns records only within the set scope. If records outside the scope are returned, check the retrieval scope settings; if an empty result is returned, use an explicit paper input empty list to check the downstream handoff design.
- Input the user selection node configuration and branch connections from the above sample. Compare whether the corresponding "yes" branch executes after the user makes a choice, and observe whether branch connections correspond to the question item by item. If a branch connection does not match the question, record it as a connection error; if the conversation does not enter interaction state, check whether the node is an interaction node. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first and exclude non-conforming ones.