What the documents look like
Settlement for supermarket supplier entry is mostly purchase-and-sale or consignment accounting. A supplier does not necessarily operate a staffed counter inside the store, which separates this category from a hypermarket concession counter. Four document families carry the work: purchase contracts, delivery acceptance notes, rebate agreements, and reconciliation statements. Data arrives from ERP purchasing, the supplier portal, POS sales, and the finance system. The three most time-consuming steps are checking accepted quantities, calculating rebate deductions, and handling return differences. For workflow routing, this means a single settlement question can touch contract terms, acceptance records, and sales receipts at the same time. Information collected by an interactive node has to be passed explicitly to the later retrieval, decision, or interface node that uses it. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process; the interactive nodes do not perform them.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node and the User Selection node are both user-interaction nodes. When either node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user finishes the interaction. The Form Input node collects the required information the user submits and passes that information to later nodes. The User Selection node judges the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. These are behaviors of the nodes themselves; no separate global state-recording switch is documented, and none should be claimed. Verifying branch connections one by one is a manual review action. Retrieval or a submitted form does not constitute authorization, and a pending-review status does not demonstrate that an operation permission is absent.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source text reads, "Supplier A signed a purchase-and-sale procurement contract with Supermarket B, contract period January 2025 to June 2025; the delivery acceptance note records arrival of 200 cases on 5 March 2025, of which 180 cases passed acceptance; the rebate agreement provides that the deduction is calculated on the accepted quantity." A draft sentence to be assessed reads, "This March 2025 order was performed normally, and the rebate can be calculated on the 200 cases that arrived." The subject, object, period, and fields needed for the judgment all appear in the source text above.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input required fields | Contract number, acceptance note number, reconciliation period | Compare item by item against the contract period and acceptance date fields in the sample source text |
| User Selection branches | Two branches, "difference exists" and "difference does not exist" | Compare against the gap between the 180 accepted cases and the 200 arrived cases |
| Interaction-state handoff | Submitted form values passed to the later retrieval node | Check whether the submitted value equals the quantity stated in the sample source text |
| Branch-connection review | Inspect each "yes" branch target one by one | Compare against the User Selection document statement that the corresponding branch executes |
| External action split | Order writes attached to a separate business interface | Check whether that interface is independent of the retrieval and form nodes |
The starting points above are settings for this paper exercise and are not described as official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating the accepted quantity collected by the Form Input node as the rebate basis without comparing it to the "accepted quantity" field in the rebate agreement. Input: the draft sentence "calculate the rebate on the 200 arrived cases." Comparison object: the source text "180 cases passed acceptance." Observable result: the two quantities do not match.
- Treating the User Selection node's "difference exists" branch as a completed return. Input: the branch-selection action. Comparison object: whether a return-handling interface or later process exists. Observable result: branch execution does not equal a completed return.
- Treating a retrieval result or a form submission as authorized execution. Input: the retrieval return or the submitted form value. Comparison object: whether a business approval or interface write record exists. Observable result: without authorization evidence, the status remains pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text and the draft sentence "This March 2025 order was performed normally, and the rebate can be calculated on the 200 cases that arrived." Compare whether the quantity field in the draft sentence matches the source text "180 cases passed acceptance" for the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The condition is satisfied when the two agree; when they do not, record that the draft sentence is unsupported and note the evidence gap.
- Input the User Selection node's branch-selection action and the list of downstream node connections. Compare whether each branch connects to its corresponding target node. The condition is satisfied when the "yes" branch target is explicit; when a connection is missing, record it as pending verification and do not infer an automatic execution result.
- Input the submitted form value and its downstream destination. Compare whether the submitted value is explicitly passed to a later retrieval, decision, or interface node. The condition is satisfied when the downstream node can identify that input; when it cannot, record the gap and do not claim that an order was written or an external status was synchronized.