What the documents look like
Regional dealer stock replenishment runs as a daily rolling order cycle. Replenishment requests, inventory turnover tables, outbound notes and payment-collection plans update by week or by month, which sets this category apart from seasonal, concentrated ordering events. The practical consequence for copy drafting is that the source material is spread across several documents. The replenishment quantity, the inventory status and the collection progress for one batch of goods frequently sit in different files, and no single document carries all of them.
The documents this page works with are the replenishment request, the inventory turnover table, the outbound note and the payment-collection plan. A replenishment request states a request number, a product, a requested quantity, a submission date and a status. An inventory turnover table carries stock movement over a period. An outbound note records goods leaving a warehouse. A payment-collection plan records expected or received payment against a period. The workflow routing step here has one job: collect information from these documents in node order, pass it forward, and receive it downstream, so that a drafted product or marketing sentence can be traced back to a specific field in a specific document.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node is a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user completes the required fields and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to later nodes.
The user selection node is also a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and both trigger execution. The interaction state and the state recording are behaviours of the nodes themselves; this page does not assume a separate global state-recording switch, and none is documented.
Information collected at these nodes must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes, and the output must be compared item by item against the input. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later process. The interaction nodes do not perform those business actions themselves. Retrieval is the process of bringing material back; it does not carry out authorisation judgement. Semantic recall and relevance do not perform permission or entity isolation. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the identifiers must be checked first and non-matching libraries excluded. A cross-model retrieval is not run in order to compare missed recalls.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers this page's sample and lists documented settings or implementation checks that relate to this feature and the primary task. Where a number is needed, it is marked as a hypothetical starting point for this exercise.
| Configuration item | Value or check for this exercise | Basis and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect three required fields: replenishment request number, product name, draft sentence | The documentation states the node collects required information and passes it to later nodes; after submission, compare the passed content item by item |
| User selection node | Set a choice item: whether the draft sentence matches the material | The documentation states the "yes" branch executes after the user chooses; check the branch connection |
| Interaction state check | On trigger, the conversation enters interaction state and the workflow state is recorded | Documented as node behaviour; no separate global state-recording switch is assumed |
| Output handover | Pass collected information to the retrieval node and the judgement node | The documentation states information is passed to later nodes; compare output against input item by item |
| External action split | Order writing, document backfill and external synchronisation connect to a separate business interface | The documentation states a separate business interface or later process is required |
| Hypothetical starting point | One interaction collects three required fields | Chosen so the items can be compared one by one; compare against the number of items actually passed after submission |
Three common errors
- Treating an interaction node as a completed business action. The form input node collects and passes information; order writing and external synchronisation require a separate business interface. Configuration must separate what the node already does from business actions that need a separately connected system implementation.
- Using retrieval relevance in place of a permission judgement. Relevance is an ordering basis for bringing material back and does not perform permission or entity isolation. The authorisation judgement belongs outside retrieval and must be checked separately.
- Associating libraries across vector models. Libraries on different vector models cannot be associated together. The identifiers must be checked first and non-matching libraries excluded, with the actual observation recorded. Missed recall or redundant results are not inferred from this.
How to verify the setup
The verification below uses a hypothetical paper exercise. The material text is: "Replenishment request number BX-0417, product is Type A stock item, requested quantity 200 units, submission date 17 April, status pending confirmation by the brand channel manager." The draft sentence is: "Type A stock item has completed replenishment of 200 units." The draft sentence and the material text share the same subject, the same object and the same field. The material status is pending confirmation; the draft sentence states completion. The two take mutually exclusive values on the same field.
- Input the material text and the draft sentence, and compare the status field: the material reads pending confirmation, the draft reads completed. The condition is met if the node output identifies that the two values on this field are mutually exclusive. The expectation is that the inconsistency is identified. No actual test is claimed.
- Input the three required fields collected by the form input node, and compare what is passed to later nodes after submission. The condition is met if the items received downstream match the submitted items. The expectation is item-by-item agreement. No actual test is claimed.
- Input the selection result from the user selection node, and compare the connection and execution of the "yes" branch. The condition is met if the branch executed after the choice matches the configured branch. The expectation is that the branch corresponds. No actual test is claimed.
If the draft sentence is changed to "Type A stock item replenishment request for 200 units has been submitted, status pending confirmation," it takes the same value as the material text on the same field and is supported. Where the material does not state a payment-collection plan or an outbound record, statements about those remain unsupported and the evidence gap is preserved. Missing material is not used to infer a negative finding.