What the documents look like
Overseas stock replenishment for third-party warehouses serves multiple sales channels, and the seller allocates inventory across those channels. The working materials come from the overseas warehouse WMS, ERP sales forecasts, freight forwarder systems and carrier bills. Day-to-day documents include replenishment plans, inbound appointment records, inventory aging tables and last-mile delivery notes. Replenishment plans and aging tables update weekly or daily.
For copy drafting, the source material is scattered across those documents. A replenishment plan carries an arrival date at the warehouse. An aging table carries the number of days stock has been held. An inbound appointment carries the warehouse and the time slot. A drafted sentence about an arrival promise or a stock status has to correspond line by line with those materials. Whatever the materials do not state stays unknown, and the draft cannot fill that gap on its own.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The workflow has to connect material collection with the copy judgment. When the form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state, the dialogue box is hidden, and the node collects the required information. After the user submits, that information passes to subsequent nodes. When the user selection node triggers, the conversation likewise enters an interactive state and the dialogue box is hidden. Once the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes record the workflow state while waiting.
In a copy drafting task, form input can collect the draft sentence to be judged together with the corresponding source text. User selection can confirm whether the draft sentence goes forward for review. The collected information must be passed explicitly to the later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes, and the output is compared item by item against the input. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. The interactive nodes do not perform those actions themselves.
Hypothetical drill sample. One piece of source text reads: "Replenishment plan number BH-2026-0311, object is the replenishment batch for SKU A at the Germany warehouse, planned arrival date 20 April 2026, status is inbound appointment submitted, appointment slot is the morning of 20 April." A second piece of source text reads: "Inventory aging table, March 2026 version, shows this SKU held in stock for 90 days." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "This item will arrive on 20 April and be listed the same day." The judgment scope is limited to these two pieces of source text and this draft sentence.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check on this page | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enters interactive state on trigger; collects required information | Submitted information passes to subsequent nodes |
| User selection node | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice | Check branch connections one by one |
| Interactive state check | Recorded state is the behavior of the interactive node | No separate global state-recording switch is set |
| Output handoff check | Collected information is passed explicitly to a later retrieval or judgment node | Compare output and input item by item |
| External action split | Order writing, document backfill and external synchronization attach to a separate interface or process | The nodes do not complete these automatically |
| Retrieval scope check | Check the target retrieval scope and the vector model identifier | Libraries on different vector models cannot be associated together |
This page sets no numeric starting parameter. If a similarity threshold is later required, it should be recorded separately as a starting point for this hypothetical trial, with the reason for choosing it and the value it is compared against. It is not described as an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating "listed the same day" in the draft sentence as supported by the materials. The materials state an arrival date and an appointment slot, and do not state a listing time. Check: input the draft sentence and the two pieces of source text, compare whether a listing field appears in the materials, and record it as unsupported when the materials do not carry it.
- Treating an interactive node as having executed a business action. Form input and user selection only collect information and evaluate a branch; order writing and external synchronization require a separate process. Check: input the node output and the downstream interface list, compare whether an interface node exists to carry the write, and record it as not executed when no interface is present.
- Using retrieval relevance in place of permission or entity isolation. A relevance score does not perform authorization filtering. Check: input the retrieval scope identifier and the subject of the target record, compare whether the identifiers match, exclude the ones that do not, and record the actual observation.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence "This item will arrive on 20 April and be listed the same day" in the hypothetical sample, input the two pieces of source text and compare whether the materials state a listing date and a listing status. The materials do not state listing information, so the judgment is unsupported and the evidence gap is recorded.
- For the draft sentence and source text collected by the form input node, input the downstream node list and compare whether the information is passed explicitly to a retrieval or judgment node. An explicit handoff that can be compared item by item satisfies the condition; otherwise record the gap.
- For the retrieval scope, input the vector model identifier of the target library and the subject of the draft sentence, and compare whether the identifiers match. Only matching identifiers may be associated together; mismatched ones are excluded and no cross-model retrieval comparison is performed. For empty-result handoff, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design. This does not claim that a retrieval under a fictional rule will return [].
A pending review does not show that operating permission is missing. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period. Missing evidence stays missing, and no authorization or effectiveness clause is invented to obtain a definite answer.