What the documents look like
Brand-owned stores are staffed and accounted for directly by the brand, and they are not managed through franchise agreements. This difference shapes what document comparison covers here: the two sides of a comparison are usually records the store itself produced, so the basis for a judgment sits in the wording of the material rather than in an external authorization chain.
The main data sources are the POS system, the member CRM, ERP inventory, and store inspection records. The documents handled day to day include daily sales reports, shift schedules, display photos, and inventory transfer orders. These materials update daily or weekly. The parties involved are the brand retail company, store managers, and regional managers.
The typical comparison question in this category is whether a discount, a quantity, or a settlement method written on one transaction record matches the corresponding field on another record. Because the brand-owned system has no franchise contract as an intermediate layer, both sides of the comparison are often store-generated records.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Workflow routing here means feeding the materials to be compared into the flow, using interaction nodes to collect human-supplied information, and passing the result to later nodes. When the Form Input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded; after the user fills in the required information and submits, the node passes that information to later nodes. When the User Selection node triggers, the conversation also enters an interaction state; when the user makes a selection, the node evaluates that selection and executes the "yes" branch. These are documented node behaviors. They do not include automatic determination of whether material is authentic and do not include automatic approval of any business action.
Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorization. Retrieval is responsible for recalling material; a form is responsible for collecting entered values. Neither verifies whether the person entering values has authority to approve a transfer, a refund, or a settlement. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later flow, and interaction nodes cannot perform them.
Hypothetical paper test case. Material one is a daily sales report from a brand-owned store. Its text reads: "March 10, 2025, Store A, item number S-100, completed quantity 3, completed unit price 200, discount type employee internal purchase." Material two is an inventory transfer order for the same day. Its text reads: "March 10, 2025, Store A, item number S-100, transfer quantity 3, transfer type inter-store transfer." The draft sentence to be judged is: "The three completed units of S-100 at Store A on March 10, 2025 belong to an inter-store transfer." The two materials share the same party, date, and item number, but material one labels the transaction as an employee internal purchase and material two labels it as an inter-store transfer. The same field carries mutually exclusive values.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists settings or implementation checks tied directly to the sample on this page. Fields, values, and switches not described in the documentation are not listed.
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Node behavior | After triggering, enters an interaction state, collects required information, and passes it to later nodes on submission |
| User Selection node | Node behavior | After the user makes a selection, evaluates that selection and executes the "yes" branch |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | State recording is a behavior of the interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is set |
| Output handoff check | Implementation check | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and compare output against input item by item |
| External operation separation | Implementation check | Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later flow |
| Retrieval scope check | Implementation check | Material needed for the check must sit within a target retrieval scope the operator may access, or within explicit manual input; record the gap when it is missing |
Hypothetical starting point for this test: use "inter-store transfer" from the draft sentence as the retrieval keyword and compare it item by item against the corresponding fields in material one and material two. This starting point is chosen because the draft sentence directly cites the transfer type field in material two, which makes it easy to locate the specific source line; the comparison target is the discount type field in material one for the same date and the same item number. This starting point is a hypothetical setting for this test, not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. Retrieving material one and material two only shows that both materials entered the comparison scope. It does not show that the draft sentence holds, and it does not show that the person entering values has authority to approve a transfer. The Form Input node collects entered values; business verification and approval require a later flow.
- Treating two values of the same field as complementary. Material one says "employee internal purchase" and material two says "inter-store transfer." These are mutually exclusive values of the same field and form a contradiction. Reading them as "both an employee internal purchase and an inter-store transfer" skips the contradiction judgment.
- Treating a pending-review status as missing operating authority. If a material shows only the words "pending review," the matter has not completed review. This does not support an inference that the person entering values lacks submission authority, and it does not support an inference that the transfer was rejected. Signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts; whatever the material does not state remains unknown.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the text of material one, the text of material two, and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare whether "inter-store transfer" in the draft sentence and "employee internal purchase" in material one point to the same field. If they are the same field with mutually exclusive values, the contradiction judgment holds, and the expected output is "same field, inconsistent values."
- Enter the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare whether its party, date, and item number match both materials. If all three match while the field values differ, mismatched party and mismatched period are ruled out, and the expected output is "party, period, and field all correspond; values conflict."
- Enter a material that states neither a discount type nor a transfer type. Compare whether that material can support the type judgment in the draft sentence. If the material lacks that field, the expected output is "not supported, pending verification," and the output must not be "negative" or "conflict." If retrieval returns an empty result, check the downstream design against an explicit paper input of [] and do not claim that a hypothetical rule-based retrieval necessarily returns [].
The verification above is a paper check design. It was not executed and does not constitute approval or completion of any business action.