What the documents look like
Site selection and store opening work happens before a store begins trading. The activity centers on lease negotiation and engineering handover. The main data sources named for this category are trade-area footfall, map points of interest, point-of-sale historical store-type records, and landlord materials. The everyday documents are the site evaluation form, the lease letter of intent, the renovation budget, and the opening schedule. Updates are irregular and per store; this page does not derive batch or real-time mechanisms from that frequency.
For workflow routing, these materials create a state-carryover problem across several documents. Whether the letter of intent has been signed, whether the budget has been confirmed, and whether the schedule has been locked are separate facts, and none of them stands in for another. In the documented FastGPT v4.17.2 behavior, the form input node and the user selection node are both user-interaction nodes. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded; after the user completes the interaction, execution continues downward. The form input node collects required information and, after submission, passes the collected information to later nodes. The user selection node judges the user's choice and executes the "yes" branch. Workflow routing therefore has to pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and compare outputs against inputs item by item.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The interaction state and the state record are behaviors of the interaction nodes. The supplied documents do not describe a separate global state-recording switch, and this page does not assert one. Retrieval or form collection does not constitute authorization. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separately connected business interface or a later process.
Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. A shared vector-model requirement applies to retrieval libraries; it does not extend to business-registration sites or other external systems.
Hypothetical drill sample: a chain headquarters expansion staff member submits a handover request with three source sentences. "Site evaluation form: object is candidate unit in trade area A, evaluation stage is initial screening, date range is March 2025, footfall source is trade-area statistics." "Lease letter of intent: lessor is property B, intended lessee is the headquarters expansion department, status is pending review, no signing date stated." "Renovation budget: prepared by the engineering manager, amount field is empty, remark is awaiting landlord confirmation of handover conditions." The draft sentence to be judged is: "The unit lease has been signed and renovation entry can be arranged." Judgment requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The letter-of-intent status is pending review, and no signing fact is stated, so the draft sentence's claim of a completed signing is not supported and remains to be verified. Pending review does not demonstrate the absence of operating authority.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point for this page | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Set to collect candidate unit, evaluation stage, date range | Corresponds to sample material fields; compare submitted values item by item |
| User selection node | Set "yes" branch to carry letter-of-intent status confirmation | Compare against sample pending-review status; verify branch connection |
| Interaction state check | Observe recorded state as node behavior | Compare against the interaction state described in the documents |
| Output carry-over check | Pass collected information to later judgment node | Compare outputs against inputs item by item |
| Retrieval scope check | Check target library identifier and vector-model identifier | Exclude cross-model library association |
| External operation split | Connect order writes to a separate business interface | Check separately from form collection results |
Three common errors
- Treating a "pending review" letter of intent as signed. Input is the sample letter-of-intent text; compare the status field against the draft sentence's "has been signed"; the observed result is that the two are inconsistent.
- Treating form collection as authorized execution. Input is the form submission value; compare whether a separate business interface carries the write; the observed result is that the collection action itself produces no write.
- Treating relevance as a permission or entity filter. Input is the retrieval request and the target library identifier; compare the library identifier against the vector-model identifier; the observed result is that a similarity setting does not exclude unauthorized records.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample letter-of-intent text and the draft sentence; compare the status field value. If the signing fact claimed in the draft sentence has no corresponding record in the material, judge it as not supported.
- Input the form submission value and the later node input; compare whether the fields match item by item. A match means the carry-over is correct; if no interface carry-over exists, the write remains unexecuted.
- Input the retrieval request and the target library identifier; compare the library identifier against the vector-model identifier. If the identifiers do not match, exclude that library and record the actual observation. An empty result can be checked against downstream design using an explicit paper input of []; this page does not claim that a fictional rule's retrieval necessarily returns [].