What the documents look like
Outlet discount operations exist to clear out-of-season stock, and they do not maintain a new-arrival full-price image. That purpose shapes what contract and transaction material comparison actually has to check. The comparison objects are discount approvals, slow-moving inventory lists, price tags and gross-margin calculation sheets. These materials move on a weekly or monthly cycle, and the typical participants are brand outlet stores, channel clearance teams and finance business partners.
At handover, the practical question is which state a given material is in: drafted, pending review, signed, or already effective. A discount approval sheet, a slow-moving list and a margin sheet can all be in different states at the same moment. When comparison gets this wrong, the consequences are damage to the price system, inventory that keeps sitting, and gross-margin loss.
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 the dialogue box is hidden. After the user fills in the required information and submits, the node collects what was entered and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node behaves the same way at trigger time: the conversation enters the interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding branch.
Both nodes are user-interaction nodes, both can be added repeatedly, and both trigger execution. Interaction state, state recording and hiding the dialogue box are existing behaviours of these nodes; there is no separate global state-recording switch to configure. Information that is collected must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and form submission do not by themselves constitute authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. An outlet store clearance team submits a discount approval material. The source text reads: "Brand XX out-of-season down jackets, January 2025 batch, discount rate requested 40%, approval status is pending review, applicant: channel clearance team, valid until 31 March 2025." A separate draft sentence is to be judged: "This batch discount has been approved and can be executed at 40%." The comparison task is to decide whether the draft sentence is consistent with the source material. The source shows only pending review and no approval; a valid-until date of 31 March does not indicate a supply period. The draft sentence states pending review as approved, which is an unsupported judgment.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enters interaction state on trigger, collects required information, passes it to later nodes after submission | Collects discount rate, approval status and valid-until fields |
| User selection node | Executes the corresponding branch after the user makes a choice | Sets up a "material consistent / inconsistent" branch |
| Output handover check | Passes collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes | Passes source text and draft sentence into the comparison node |
| Interaction state check | State recording is a behaviour of the interaction node; no separate global switch is set | Check state recording before and after submission |
| External action division | Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later process | Approval, execution and synchronization are not completed on this page |
| Retrieval scope check | Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; verify identifiers first and exclude non-matching ones | Confirm the material source library identifier is consistent |
Hypothetical trial starting point: set the comparison threshold to a similarity of 0.8. The reason for choosing this value is that it sits above a common noise level, and the comparison object is the vector similarity output of the source text and the draft sentence. This value is a paper-exercise setting for this page and is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as approved. The sample source has an approval status of "pending review," while the draft sentence says "has been approved." The input is the source status field and the draft sentence wording; the comparison is whether the two point to the same state; the observable result is that the state values do not match.
- Treating a valid-until date as a supply period. The source phrase "valid until 31 March 2025" limits only the quotation validity range. If the draft sentence says "supply until 31 March," it goes beyond the source. The input is the valid-until field and the draft sentence time wording; the comparison is the field meaning; the observable result is a mismatch in period type.
- Using a retrieval hit as authorization. A retrieval hit on the source material does not equal approval to execute. The input is the source fragment returned by retrieval; the comparison is whether it contains an approval field; the observable result is that the source has no approval field and the draft sentence's approval wording is unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source "approval status is pending review" together with the draft sentence "this batch discount has been approved." Compare the state field values of the two. The condition is met when the comparison node outputs "inconsistent" and does not rewrite pending review as approved.
- Input the source "valid until 31 March 2025" together with the draft sentence "supply until 31 March 2025." Compare the field types. The condition is met when the comparison node identifies valid-until and supply period as different fields and outputs "unsupported."
- Input an empty result [] together with the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream handles the empty result explicitly. The condition is met when the downstream node records the gap on receiving [], without fabricating approval or execution actions. These are paper checks; no live test is claimed.