What the documents look like
Supermarket supplier onboarding and settlement revolve around purchase-and-sale or consignment payables. A supplier does not necessarily operate an on-site counter. The working papers are the purchase contract, the delivery acceptance note, the rebate agreement and the statement of account. Source data arrives from ERP purchasing, the supplier portal, POS sales and the finance system, with weekly and monthly update rhythms. This page addresses one task only: drafting product and marketing copy. It turns product details, price conditions and promotional wording that are already stated in those papers into a submittable draft, with the form input node and the user selection node carrying the interaction.
In the documented behaviour, the form input node collects the information a user fills in and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node judges the user's choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both are interaction nodes: when triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits until the user finishes. Neither node supplies a business database, an approval step or a write-back capability. Fields not stated in the source papers remain unknown. Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations belong to external systems or later nodes as required.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The draft's fields must come from the papers. Where a paper is silent, the field stays unknown rather than being filled by inference. The interaction nodes collect values and branch on a choice; they do not verify business facts, approve anything, write to a database or synchronise with an external system.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Source text one: "Supplier A signed a purchase contract with Supermarket B for a one-litre brand pure milk product, settlement by purchase and sale, with the payment term governed by the statement of account." Source text two: "The delivery acceptance note records 120 cases of this pure milk accepted on 10 March 2025." Source text three: "The rebate agreement provides that the rebate percentage is calculated after the quarterly reconciliation, with the specific percentage set out in the agreement annex." Draft sentence to be judged: "The rebate percentage for this one-litre brand pure milk has been settled for the quarter at the annex rate, and the supplier may continue normal supply."
The draft sentence asserts three things: a rebate percentage, a settled status and a continuing supply status. The annex percentage is not provided. No settlement completion and no supply continuation appear in any source text. On the same subject, the same period and the same field, the materials contain no supporting record, so the sentence is unsupported and must not be submitted. This is a paper exercise only; no test, approval or settlement has occurred.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check on this page | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect product name, specification, accepted quantity, acceptance date, settlement method | The node collects filled information and passes it to later nodes |
| Required-field check | Test submission with the product name missing, then with the accepted quantity missing | The interaction state does not complete while required information is absent |
| User selection node | Whether the draft sentence may be submitted; "yes" continues, "no" returns for more materials | The node judges the choice and executes the "yes" branch |
| Interaction state | On trigger, workflow state is recorded and execution waits for the fill or the choice | Execution continues downward after the interaction completes |
| Downstream division of labour | Field validation, approval and write-back are implemented in external systems or later nodes | The nodes carry no business database function |
| Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Accepted quantity starting point of 120 cases, compared against the delivery acceptance note | The figure comes from the hypothetical sample, not from an official default |
Three common errors
- Writing an unstated rebate percentage as settled. The draft sentence says the rebate was settled at the annex rate, while source text three states only that the specific percentage is set out in the annex. The annex is not provided, so the assertion is unsupported.
- Treating accepted quantity and settled quantity as one field. The materials record an accepted quantity of 120 cases and nothing else. A draft sentence reading "120 cases settled" draws on a settlement record that is absent, which is an inference across fields.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as an approval. The node judges a choice and executes a branch. Approval requires an external system, and selecting "yes" does not complete an approval.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the hypothetical source texts and the draft sentence. Compare the rebate percentage, the settled status and the supply status asserted in the sentence against the records in the source texts. Expected observation: where none of the three has a corresponding record, the sentence is marked unsupported and must not be submitted.
- Enter the form fields, first with the product name missing and then with the accepted quantity missing. Compare whether the interaction state completes after submission. Expected observation: with a required field missing the interaction state does not complete; once the field is supplied, the information passes to later nodes.
- Enter a user selection of "yes", then of "no". Compare the branch taken. Expected observation: "yes" enters the continue branch and "no" enters the return-for-materials branch. Neither branch produces an approval, a write-back or a database write.