What the documents look like
Fresh-food weighing and sorting happens inside warehouse fulfilment, and the central data is weight and specification. Source systems named in the brief are the WMS, electronic scales, the order system and quality-inspection photos. The documents handled day to day are the sorting task sheet, the weighing label, the short-weight compensation form and the quality-inspection record. Update frequency is per order and daily, so each workflow trigger faces information scoped to a single task. Routing design therefore compares the input and output of one interaction at a time and does not assume that an upstream batch or full synchronization has already completed.
For product data and selection questions, the practical effect is that specification, weight and compensation conditions arrive as per-order values rather than as a settled catalogue. The workflow has to carry those values forward explicitly and show which downstream node receives them.
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 after the user completes the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user-interaction node: it enters the interaction state, and when the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. The basic use is to pose a question that requires a decision and to design different workflow paths from the user's feedback.
For this category, routing must pass collected specification, weight and compensation-condition fields to the later retrieval, judgement or interface node, and compare output against input item by item. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and form collection do not by themselves constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a sorting task sheet records "task sheet number XC-0417, product is loose spinach, specification 500 g ± 20 g, the sorter has completed weighing and generated a weighing label, label weight 486 g." A short-weight compensation form draft states "this order applies for compensation of the 14 g difference in amount, quality-inspection record attached, pending supervisor approval." One draft sentence awaiting judgement reads "the compensation form has been approved and executed." The comparison is between the draft's "pending supervisor approval" status and the draft sentence's "approved and executed." The subject is the same, the object is the same, and the field is the approval status in both cases; the values are mutually exclusive, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented official behaviour | Enters the interaction state on trigger, collects required information, and passes it to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Documented official behaviour | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice; verify branch connections one by one |
| Interaction-state check | Implementation check | The recorded state is behaviour of the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch is set |
| Output handover check | Implementation check | Pass collected information explicitly to the later retrieval, judgement or interface node and compare output against input item by item |
| External-operation separation | Implementation check | Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process |
| Assumed trial starting point for this exercise | Hypothetical value | Required form fields are set to product name, specification and weight; the reason is that these are the minimum comparison fields in the sample task sheet and label, and they are compared with the fields the later node actually receives |
Three common errors
- Treating compensation information collected by the form as approved. Input is the short-weight compensation form draft "pending supervisor approval." The comparison object is the draft sentence "approved and executed." The observable result is that the draft's status field and the draft sentence's value are mutually exclusive, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating execution of a user selection branch as business authorization. Input is the "yes" branch triggered at the selection node. The comparison object is the external-operation separation requirement. The observable result is that the branch only decides the workflow path, and order writes still require a separate interface.
- Treating a retrieval relevance score as a permission or entity filter. Input is a similarity value returned by one retrieval. The comparison object is the access-permission scope. The observable result is that the score does not change whether a record is accessible, and unauthorized records still require manual exclusion.
How to verify the setup
- Take the hypothetical sample's task sheet text "specification 500 g ± 20 g, label weight 486 g" and enter it into the required form fields. Compare the form output against the task sheet text field by field; the condition is met when the values agree item by item.
- Take the hypothetical sample's draft sentence "the compensation form has been approved and executed" and enter it at the judgement branch following the user selection node. Compare the approval-status field of the draft sentence against the compensation form draft's "pending supervisor approval." When the values are mutually exclusive, the draft sentence is unsupported and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Take the hypothetical sample's quality-inspection record as retrieval input. Compare the returned content against the identifier field of the input document. Only the same vector model permits joint association; for different model libraries, check identifiers first and exclude non-matching items, without running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls. For empty-result handling, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design; do not claim that a retrieval under a fictional rule necessarily returns [].