What the documents look like
Central chain procurement and distribution work runs through headquarters purchasing and the distribution center. Store display checks sit outside this category. The operational records come from ERP purchasing, WMS, store POS, and supplier delivery data. The documents handled day to day are centralized procurement contracts, replenishment plans, distribution notes, and store requisition forms. A single document commonly links several parties (headquarters, distribution center, store, supplier), several objects (item, quantity, batch, route), and several states such as pending review, submitted, or delivered. Updates arrive daily or weekly.
For product data and selection questions, workflow routing has to carry the selection conditions or document requests a user supplies into the later retrieval or judgment nodes. It also has to keep clear which steps only collect information and which steps need a separate business system connection. This page covers routing at that point and does not describe batch synchronization or real-time triggers.
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 the dialog box is hidden. The user fills in the required information and submits; the node then collects the submitted form values and passes them to later nodes. The user selection node also enters the interaction state and records workflow state. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Its basic use is to pose a question that requires a decision and route the workflow according to the feedback.
The constraint is that both nodes collect form values or a chosen option. Neither one performs business verification, approval, database writes, or external synchronization. A retrieval relevance score is not a permission filter or an entity filter; retrieval itself grants no operating authorization. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together, so identifiers must be checked first and non-matching libraries excluded rather than running a cross-model search to compare missed recalls. An empty result can be checked against a clearly written paper input of [] to inspect downstream design; no claim is made that a fictional rule search returns [].
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A chain enterprise supply chain center needs to check the selection question flow for one centralized procurement contract. The source text reads: "Centralized procurement contract number JCHT-2025-0301; purchasing entity is the headquarters supply chain center; supply target is the East China distribution center; item category is chilled dairy; contract state is pending review; signing date is not stated." The drafted sentence is: "This contract is in effect and a distribution wave can be arranged." The request to be judged is: "Based on the contract number and category, confirm whether the distribution arrangement can be executed."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Link to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Triggers the interaction state, collects required information, passes it on after submission | Collects contract number and category as selection conditions |
| User selection node | Executes the "yes" branch after a user choice; verify branch connections one by one | Confirms whether to continue retrieval or route to a person |
| Interaction state check | Recording state is behavior of the interaction node; no separate global state switch is set | Checks the flow path while contract state is pending review |
| Output handoff check | Passes collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes | Checks whether the drafted sentence is referenced directly downstream |
| External action separation | Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface | Distribution execution is not completed in these nodes |
Three common errors
- Treating the contract number and category collected by the form input node as grounds that the contract is in effect or that distribution can be executed. The node collects values only. It does not verify contract state, and pending review does not equal in effect.
- Reading execution of the "yes" branch in the user selection node as business approval or completed authorization. Branch execution shows only that the user made a choice. It does not show that any business action was approved.
- Treating a returned relevance score as a filter that can exclude unrelated suppliers or unauthorized stores. A relevance score carries no permission or entity isolation function, and retrieval grants no operating authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the source text and the drafted sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the drafted sentence "This contract is in effect and a distribution wave can be arranged" against the source wording "contract state is pending review; signing date is not stated." Expected observation: the claim "in effect" is not supported by the source text, so it is recorded as pending verification and is not output as a settled conclusion.
- Enter the request to be judged: "Based on the contract number and category, confirm whether the distribution arrangement can be executed." Compare "confirm the distribution arrangement can be executed" against the actual capability of the nodes. Expected observation: the form input node and user selection node collect and pass information only; distribution execution requires a separate business interface, and node output does not contain an execution result.
- Enter the paper empty result
[]. Compare whether downstream nodes misread the empty result as "no such contract" or "no permission." Expected observation: an empty result means this retrieval returned no match. It does not mean the contract does not exist or that the user lacks permission. It is recorded as an evidence gap and routed for human verification.