What the documents look like
Near-expiry markdown work in fresh produce targets shelf inventory batches rather than individual weighed order lines. The working data comes from POS stock-age records, store inspections, ERP inventory, and quality-check records. The daily documents are near-expiry lists, markdown approvals, damage write-off forms, and promotional price tags. Copy drafting for goods and marketing sits after markdown approval and before the price tag is placed, turning an approved markdown range into sentences that can be shown to shoppers.
That position shapes the risk. If a drafted sentence claims a status the underlying material does not carry, the outcome connects to expired sales, expanded loss, and food-safety complaints. The brief gives a data update frequency of daily and per shift. This page does not infer batch synchronization or real-time triggering from that frequency.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
Drafting depends on source material, and the material is spread across the near-expiry list, the markdown approval, the damage write-off form, and the promotional price tag. The form input node collects the information that is filled in and passes it to later nodes after submission; it does not include a business database function of its own. The user selection node executes a branch according to the user's choice; it is not a staff directory or a business data selector. When either node triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state, records the workflow state, and waits for the interaction; after the interaction completes, execution continues downward. Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations are implemented in external systems or later nodes as needed. The interactive nodes themselves do not perform those actions.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A store's fresh produce area holds a paper record stating: "Batch A-0715, leafy vegetables, entered the near-expiry list on 15 July 2025, markdown approval status is approved, markdown is 30 percent off the original price, valid scope is before close of business on the same day." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This batch of leafy vegetables has passed markdown approval and is sold at 30 percent off before closing today." The subject, object, status, and date range of this sentence can each be matched to a field in the material. The judgment condition is that all four agree.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect the draft sentence, batch identifier, and quoted source text | Carries the draft sentence and material fields in the sample |
| Required-information check | List subject, object, status, and valid scope as four items | When an item is missing, test whether the interactive state keeps waiting |
| User selection node | Branch on "supported by material", "not stated in material", "material contradicts" | Branch is chosen from the four-field comparison result |
| Interactive state handling | On trigger, record workflow state and wait for submission | No downward execution before submission; no automatic judgment is set |
| Downstream division of work | Field validation, approval, and write-back go to external systems or later nodes | This page implements no database write or external synchronization |
Three common errors
- Writing "markdown approval status is approved" from the material directly as "has passed markdown approval and completed sales authorization." Approval status and sales authorization are different facts. When the material does not state authorization terms, the draft sentence is recorded as unsupported.
- Treating the user selection node as a business data selector and using its branch in place of comparing material fields. User selection only executes a branch; it does not judge whether the material supports the draft sentence.
- Reading the interactive state as a guarantee of submission count or snapshot. The documents state only that workflow state is recorded and the interaction is awaited. No submission cap, automatic judgment, or snapshot guarantee is documented.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the draft sentence "This batch of leafy vegetables has passed markdown approval and is sold at 30 percent off before closing today." Compare the four fields: subject, object, status, and valid scope. When all four have consistent values in the material, record the result as supported by material. When any item is not stated, record it as unsupported; do not record it as a contradiction.
- Input the same material and a draft sentence that exceeds the valid scope, for example one that places the sale time on the following day. Compare the valid scope field. The material states only before close of business on the same day, so this sentence is recorded as unsupported, and the evidence gap is retained.
- Input the material text and a handover request that lacks a batch identifier. Compare the object field. The material states batch A-0715; when the request does not state the object, the interactive state continues waiting for completion and does not enter later nodes. All three are paper expectations, not actual runs, and no test pass is claimed.