What the documents look like
Regional dealer stock replenishment sits inside wholesale and dealer channels as everyday rolling ordering, which differs in rhythm from seasonal centralized ordering events. The working materials concentrate on four document types: replenishment requests, inventory turnover sheets, outbound delivery notes, and payment collection plans. Typical operating parties are dealer warehouses, brand channel managers, and sales back-office staff. The main data sources named for this category are the dealer ERP, the brand ordering system, warehouse inventory, and sales collections.
For order fulfilment and after-sales question handling, workflow routing has to be arranged around these four document types. The materials update on a weekly or monthly cycle, and that cadence shapes how often the routing logic is expected to encounter fresh inputs. The category-level consequence of getting this wrong is stockouts, channel inventory pile-up, and overdue receivables, which is why the routing step needs to keep document states distinct rather than collapsing them.
A replenishment request carries an application status. An inventory turnover sheet carries movement figures. An outbound delivery note records goods leaving a warehouse. A payment collection plan records expected amounts and expected dates. None of these four documents, on its own, establishes that approval, payment receipt, or outbound execution has occurred.
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 execution continues downward after the user completes the interaction. Once the user fills the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and are trigger-execution nodes. The dialog box is hidden while the interaction state is active.
These documented behaviours produce the constraints for this page. Information collected at a form node must be explicitly passed to downstream retrieval, judgement, or interface nodes. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval does not carry authorization duties, and a value collected by a form does not equal a passed business verification. A pending review state is not an approval, an offered option is not an execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.
Hypothetical paper test sample. The following is a constructed paper exercise for checking purposes. It does not refer to any real entity or business record.
Source text one: "The dealer's East China warehouse submitted a replenishment request on 10 March 2025. The requested category is Type A fittings, quantity 200 pieces. The request status is pending review by the brand channel manager."
Source text two: "The dealer's March 2025 payment collection plan shows an amount of RMB 150,000 due before 25 March. As of 10 March, the payment due date has not yet arrived."
Draft sentence to be assessed: "The dealer's replenishment request has been approved, and the warehouse may arrange outbound delivery."
Assessment points: source text one shows only that the request status is pending review. It does not record an approval fact. Source text two shows only a planned collection date and amount. It does not record that payment has been received. The draft sentence presents a pending review state as an approval and treats a planned collection date as a basis for outbound delivery. Both statements lack support in the materials. The correct determination is pending verification, with the evidence gap retained.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Existing node behaviour | After triggering, the conversation enters the interaction state, collects required information, and passes it to subsequent nodes after submission. |
| User Selection node | Existing node behaviour | After the user makes a choice, the "yes" branch executes; verify each branch connection individually. |
| Interaction state check | Manual check action | Confirm whether the interaction node records state; do not add or claim a separate global state-recording switch. |
| Output handover check | Manual check action | Compare each collected item against whether it is passed to a subsequent retrieval, judgement, or interface node. |
| Order writing and external synchronization | Requires a separate system implementation | Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. |
| Hypothetical trial starting value | Hypothetical trial starting value for this page | Use the quantity of 200 pieces from source text one as the comparison starting value for this exercise. This value is chosen because it is the only explicit quantity field in the sample, and it is compared against the outbound delivery note quantity. |
The starting value above is a hypothetical trial value for this page. It is not an official default, and no documented default value, limit, or unit is claimed for it.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending review status as an approval. Source text one states "the request status is pending review by the brand channel manager." If a draft sentence writes "has been approved," the input is source text one, the comparison is between the two field values "pending review" and "approved," and the observable result is that the two do not match. The approval claim is unsupported.
- Treating a planned collection date as a received-payment fact. Source text two states "an amount of RMB 150,000 due before 25 March. As of 10 March, the payment due date has not yet arrived." If a draft sentence uses this as a basis for outbound delivery, the input is source text two, the comparison is between the fields "planned collection date" and "actual receipt," and the observable result is that the material does not record a receipt fact. The determination is pending verification.
- Treating a form-collected value as a passed business verification. If the workflow collects the quantity 200 pieces at the Form Input node and then directly triggers an outbound action, the input is the submitted form value, the comparison is between the form collection behaviour and the business approval status, and the observable result is that the form node only collects information and does not perform approval. The outbound action requires a separate business interface.
How to verify the setup
- For source text one and the draft sentence, input the full text of source text one, compare the value of the "request status" field against the wording "has been approved" in the draft sentence, and observe that the two do not match. The determination is pending verification. If the draft sentence is changed to "the request status is pending review," it is consistent with the material.
- For source text two, input the full text of source text two, compare the fields "planned collection date" and "actual receipt," and observe that the material does not record a receipt fact. The determination is pending verification. If supplementary material records "RMB 150,000 received on 20 March," the receipt fact is supported.
- For the output handover of the Form Input node, input the hypothetical submitted form value of 200 pieces, compare whether that value is passed to a subsequent judgement node, and observe that the form node only completes information collection and handover. Approval and outbound actions require a separate business interface. If the downstream interface node is not configured, the outbound action does not execute.
Retrieval relevance does not act as an authorization or entity filter, and a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval is not authorization. When a check requires a number, model, rule, or identifier, the complete hypothetical source text and its context must be provided first; no such value should be treated as having existed in real records or having been tested.