What the documents look like
Multi-warehouse fulfilment decides which warehouse ships an order at the routing stage, earlier than the handover step in courier operations. The working documents are split rules, inventory synchronisation tables, transfer orders and stockout warnings. Data arrives from WMS, OMS, ERP inventory and platform inventory interfaces, and updates on a daily or hourly basis. The comparison task checks subject, object, status and validity scope across these documents. Tool calls and plugins organise retrieval, parameter extraction and result collation into callable modules. The model decides when to call a module from context, and the tool description can be edited to sharpen the call timing.
A split rule states a shipping priority and a trigger condition. A transfer order states an outbound warehouse, an inbound warehouse, an item, a quantity and a status. A draft sentence that combines these documents may assert a status or a shipment outcome that the source material does not carry. The comparison step exists to surface that gap before the draft is used.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool description tells the model what the tool is for, so it needs to state the input conditions and the situations where the tool should not be called. System module parameters and plugin-configurable parameters are checked separately; a parameter description is not an execution guarantee. When a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may decline to call the tool, and the missing value has to be supplied through interaction and checked against the actual request. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and a small number of tools is tuned before more are added. The tool call termination node ends the current tool call and stops the AI from summarising the tool result. Retrieval or form collection returns values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronisation each need their own downstream implementation. Semantic recall and relevance do not enforce permission or entity isolation.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Source material one: "Transfer order DB-2025-0417, outbound warehouse: East China Warehouse A, inbound warehouse: South China Warehouse B, item SKU-8842, quantity 200 units, status is pending review." Source material two: "Split rule SR-07: SKU-8842 ships from East China Warehouse A first; when East China Warehouse A sellable stock falls below 50 units, switch to South China Warehouse B." Draft sentence: "Transfer order DB-2025-0417 has passed review, SKU-8842 inventory synchronisation is complete, and the order can ship from South China Warehouse B." Question: does the draft sentence agree with the source material?
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State that the comparison object is the transfer order, split rule and inventory synchronisation table | The model uses this to decide whether to call the comparison tool |
| Required parameters | Check whether the transfer order number, SKU and warehouse identifier are supplied | All three are present in the sample, so a call can be triggered |
| Tool connection | Connect the comparison tool to the tool call module | After connection, tool input is separated from ordinary input |
| Tool call termination | Attach after the comparison tool to end the call | The sample needs comparison only, with no AI summary of the result |
| Custom tool variable | Add a parameter description for a node not treated as a tool parameter | Can extend input for the transfer order status field |
| Retrieval scope | Confirm the target retrieval library contains the above material | When absent, record the evidence gap |
Hypothetical starting value for this exercise: the tool description lists "material contains no transfer order number or SKU" as a situation where the tool should not be called. This starting point is chosen because the draft sentence touches the transfer order status and the inventory synchronisation fields, and without an identifier the comparison object cannot be located. Comparison method: after writing that condition into the tool description, observe whether the model calls the comparison tool when only the split rule is supplied and no transfer order number is given. This starting value is set for this paper exercise and is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Reading "pending review" as "passed review". The sample transfer order status is pending review, while the draft sentence says review has passed. Pending review does not show that operating permission is absent, and it does not equal completed review. Check: extract the transfer order status field, compare it word by word with the status wording in the draft sentence, and observe whether the two point to the same value.
- Treating a split rule trigger condition as already met. Rule SR-07 switches to South China Warehouse B only when East China Warehouse A sellable stock falls below 50 units, and the sample gives no current sellable stock figure. Check: look for whether the material states East China Warehouse A sellable stock; when it is not stated, record the point as unsupported rather than as a conflict.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorised execution. Even when the comparison tool returns the transfer order and the split rule, that does not mean inventory synchronisation is complete or that the order can ship. Check: verify whether the draft sentence's "inventory synchronisation is complete" has a corresponding material field; when it is missing, record the evidence gap and do not supply a synchronisation record.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input source material one, source material two and the draft sentence. Compare "has passed review" in the draft sentence with the transfer order status field "pending review". Observable result: the two values differ, and that part of the draft sentence is unsupported by the material. The expected outcome is that the status mismatch is identified; no live test is claimed.
- Verification two: input source material two and the draft sentence. Compare "can ship from South China Warehouse B" in the draft sentence with the trigger condition in split rule SR-07. Observable result: the material does not provide East China Warehouse A current sellable stock, so whether the trigger condition is met cannot be judged. The expected outcome is that the evidence gap is recorded, with no conflict finding.
- Verification three: input source material one, source material two and the draft sentence, and check whether "inventory synchronisation is complete" has a corresponding field. Observable result: neither source states an inventory synchronisation status. The expected outcome is that the wording is marked unsupported. If retrieval returns an empty result, a clearly stated paper input of an empty list can be used to check the downstream design; no claim is made that a hypothetical rule search necessarily returns an empty list. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together, so identifiers are checked first and non-matching ones are excluded, without running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.