What the documents look like
Near-expiry markdown handling tracks the shelf-stock lifecycle rather than per-item weighing at order fulfilment. The working materials are near-expiry lists, markdown approvals, loss reports and promotional price tags. Their sources include POS stock age, store inspections, ERP inventory and quality inspection records. The brief gives daily and shift-level update frequencies; where update cadence does not affect this page's workflow routing, it is left out.
For order fulfilment and after-sales questions, the near-expiry list batch, the approval status on a markdown approval, the disposal conclusion on a loss report and the effective scope of a promotional price tag must be matched against the customer order and the after-sales request. Workflow routing here carries information collected by interaction nodes into later nodes and separates information used only for checking from actions that a business interface must perform separately.
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 fills required information and submits, the node passes the form information to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation likewise enters an interaction state, and when the user makes a selection the node evaluates that selection and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and trigger execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a store inspection record states "object is leafy vegetable batch A, stock age has entered the near-expiry interval, status is pending markdown approval, effective scope is within the current shift." A markdown approval states "object is leafy vegetable batch A, approval status is pending review, the applicant has not obtained markdown execution authorization." The proposed determination sentence is "this batch's markdown has been approved and markdown sales may be executed." The source wording and the proposed determination sentence enter the checking scope together.
The constraint is that interaction nodes only collect and pass information. Approval status, authorization boundaries, order writes, loss-report write-back and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later process. Retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorization to execute. The same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library is limited to that library's own association condition and cannot be extended to require other external systems to use the same model. An empty-result handoff can be checked against an explicit paper input of [] for downstream design; it cannot be claimed that a fictional rule retrieval will certainly return [].
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation check items tied to this page's sample. Numeric or enumerated values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, with the comparison object stated.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input required fields | Batch identifier, approval status, effective scope | These three are the minimum fields needed to check markdown authorization; compare word by word with the sample source text |
| User Selection branches | Pending review, approved, pending verification | Compare with the approval status field stated on the markdown approval; only mutually exclusive values on the same field count as a contradiction |
| Interaction-state check | Workflow state recorded after trigger | Check against the documented behavior; do not add or claim a global state-recording switch |
| Output handoff check | Form information passed to a later decision node | Compare each output field with the corresponding input field for consistency |
| External action split | Order writes and loss-report write-back connect to separate interfaces | Check whether the corresponding interface exists; record absence as not implemented |
| Retrieval association check | Same vector model identifier | Verify the identifier first and exclude non-matching ones; do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall |
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as markdown authorization. In the sample, the markdown approval states the approval status is pending review. Pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating authority, and it is not the same as approved. The erroneous practice is to move directly into the markdown execution branch once the form collects the approval status field.
- Treating the "yes" branch of a User Selection node as a business fact. The User Selection node evaluates the user's selection and executes the "yes" branch. That evaluation reflects only the interaction choice; it does not mean the approval has taken effect or that an order has been written.
- Treating a retrieval hit as a category, entity or permission filter. A relevance score does not carry category, entity or permission filtering duties. Retrieval does not constitute authorization, and a hit cannot be used to infer that a batch has been approved.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text "object is leafy vegetable batch A, approval status is pending review" together with the proposed determination sentence "this batch's markdown has been approved and markdown sales may be executed." Compare the value of the same field "approval status" for the same subject and the same period. The source text gives pending review; the proposed sentence gives approved. These are mutually exclusive, and the proposed sentence is not supported. Expected observation: the check record is marked pending verification and does not enter the markdown execution branch.
- Input the sample source text "effective scope is within the current shift" together with a handover request "extend this batch's markdown authorization to the next day." Compare the effective scope field with the period stated in the request. The request exceeds the scope stated in the source text, and the source text states no extension clause. Expected observation: record the evidence gap, keep it pending verification, and do not supply an authorization or effective clause.
- Input a paper retrieval result of [] and check whether downstream design handles the empty result. Compare whether downstream nodes define an explicit handling path for empty input; do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval will certainly return []. Expected observation: record the downstream handoff method, and record absence as not implemented.
The checks above are paper exercises. No deployment, approval, write or synchronization has been executed.