What the documents look like
Regional dealer stock replenishment runs as a daily rolling order pattern rather than a seasonal bulk order meeting. The working documents are replenishment requests, inventory turnover tables, outbound delivery notes and payment collection plans, updated weekly or monthly. A contract-and-transaction material comparison has to place the requested quantity from a replenishment request, the shipped quantity from an outbound delivery note and the amount from a payment collection plan under the same entity, the same period and the same field. Brand channel managers and sales back-office staff often alternate on these materials inside one workflow, while the source data sits across dealer ERP, brand ordering systems, warehouse stock and sales collection records. When a shared identifier is absent, comparison falls back to manual confirmation of entity and period.
The three industry facts that shape this task are the rolling rather than seasonal order pattern, the split data sources, and the absence of a common identifier. They matter because the routing step has to collect entity, object, period and quantity before any comparison node can run, and because a submitted form is an interaction event rather than a business approval.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. Once required fields are filled and submitted, the node collects the form information and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node with the same interaction-state and state-recording behaviour; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. These are existing node behaviours. Business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronisation need a separate business interface or a later process.
Hypothetical drill sample: a regional dealer submits a replenishment request whose source text reads "Requesting entity: a dealer in the East China region; replenishment object: Model A stock; requested quantity: 200 units; request period: March 2025; the attached outbound delivery note shows 180 units shipped; the payment collection plan lists a March collection amount of 54,000 yuan." A pending handover request reads "Please confirm whether this replenishment request is consistent with the outbound delivery note and the payment collection plan, and advance the follow-up replenishment." In this sample the entity, object, period and fields are explicit, but no contract text is provided and no authorisation boundary is stated. The request sits in a pending-review state and does not constitute approval or execution.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input required fields | Entity, object, period, quantity | Compare item by item against the four elements in the sample source text; a missing item means the interaction is incomplete |
| User Selection branch | "Yes" branch connected to the comparison node | Compare against the documented branch-execution behaviour and confirm the connection exists |
| Input to the downstream retrieval node | Field values after form submission | Compare item by item against the form output and confirm field names and values match |
| Output receiving node | Comparison result field | Compare against the input of the retrieval or judgement node and confirm complete transfer |
| External write interface | Not configured | The sample provides no authorisation boundary, so no write action is set |
| Manual check record | Entity and period consistency | Compare against the sample source text and record either consistency or the gap |
The values in this table are hypothetical starting points for this trial and are not official defaults. The same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library applies only to vector association inside that one retrieval library and does not extend to business-registration sites or other external systems. A relevance score does not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval itself is not authorisation.
Three common errors
- Treating a Form Input submission as completed approval. In the sample the handover request is pending review; submission means only that the interaction finished. Approval needs a separate business interface or later process, and without a stated authorisation boundary the item stays pending verification.
- Treating the User Selection "yes" branch as automatic execution of a business action. The documentation states that the node evaluates the choice and executes the branch; branch connections need item-by-item verification, and order writes and external synchronisation are not part of the node's existing behaviour.
- Treating a relevance score as an entity or permission filter. Retrieved results do not exclude unrelated business or unauthorised records, entity and period consistency still needs manual checking, and a missing field remains unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the sample source text and the handover request, then compare whether the Form Input required fields cover entity, object, period and quantity. If all four appear and are passed to later nodes after submission, the interaction is complete; if an item is missing, record the gap and do not judge consistency.
- Enter the 180 units shipped from the sample outbound delivery note and the 200 units requested, and compare under the same entity, same period and same field. The two values are explicitly mutually exclusive, so record a quantity inconsistency; no contract text is provided, so do not supply authorisation or effective clauses.
- Enter the 54,000 yuan from the sample payment collection plan and compare whether the plan and the replenishment request share the same entity and the same period. If the period matches and the field is stated, record it as checked; if the contract or authorisation scope is missing, record it as pending verification and do not claim approval or execution.
A paper check of an empty retrieval result can use an explicit input of [] to inspect the downstream receiving design; this does not assert that any fictional rule retrieval returns []. Where different vector models are involved, libraries cannot be associated together, so verify identifiers first and exclude non-matching items rather than running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls. Optional paths in an overall flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them: image retrieval needs a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking needs a model that is enabled according to its settings.