What the documents look like
A fresh-food concession counter in a hypermarket is often run by a supplier who stations staff on site and is paid through a sales-share arrangement. That structure means contract-versus-transaction comparison has to cover information that the store's fresh-food department, the concession supplier and the store manager all care about at the same time.
The main data sources are the POS system, supplier delivery notes, food-safety ledgers and store inventory counts. The daily documents are the concession contract, the daily sales report, the shrinkage (loss) sheet and the food purchase inspection record. The supplied material gives the update frequency as daily and per batch. Clauses in the contract covering the share ratio, the settlement cycle and how shrinkage is borne need to line up field by field with the actual sales amount on the daily sales report and with the quantity and cause on the shrinkage sheet. Only then does a checkable comparison chain exist.
For this page the relevant facts are the three-party structure, the contract-plus-transaction document set, and the daily/per-batch update cadence. These shape what the workflow routing step must collect and hand onward. The update frequency is not itself a routing control here, so it is noted only as given.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
At this step the workflow organises contract clauses and transaction materials into a checkable sequence by field. The Form Input node is a user-interaction node: when it is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the required fields and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node: when triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded; when the user makes a choice, the node judges that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes record workflow state. Retrieval or form collection does not by itself authorise execution. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later process. The supplied documents do not describe a global state-recording switch, so interaction waiting and state recording are read as the node documents describe them, with no additional control invented.
Hypothetical drill sample: a concession contract states, "Party B operates the fresh-food counter at Store A; the share ratio is twelve percent of monthly sales; Party B bears thirty percent of shrinkage; the settlement cycle is the calendar month." The daily sales report states, "Store A fresh-food counter March sales were 86,000 yuan." The draft sentence under review is, "For March, Party B is owed 10,320 yuan, and shrinkage is borne in full by Party B." This sample checks the correspondence between contract fields and report fields. The parties are Store A and Party B, the period is March, and the fields are the share ratio and the bearing of shrinkage.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Relation to this page's documents |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Documented | Collects required fields such as contract number, store and period; passes them to later nodes after submission |
| User Selection node | Documented | Verifies the "yes" branch connection one by one and executes the matching flow after the choice |
| Interaction state recording | Documented | A triggered node records workflow state and waits for the user before continuing |
| Output hand-off check | Implementation check | Confirms collected fields are explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes, compared item by item |
| External action split | Implementation check | Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronisation connect to a separate business interface |
| Hypothetical trial starting value | Set for this page | The share-ratio field starts from the contract text value of twelve percent and is compared against the report sales amount |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval or form collection as authorised execution. The Form Input node collects field values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronisation need downstream implementation. Check: enter the contract number and store from the sample above and observe whether later nodes only carry the fields forward without triggering a write action.
- Treating an unstated field as a contradiction. The draft sentence says shrinkage is borne in full by Party B, while the contract text states Party B bears thirty percent. These are mutually exclusive values for the same field, so this is a contradiction. If the contract did not state a shrinkage-bearing ratio, the result would be unsupported and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Treating a pending-review status as missing operating authority. In the sample the draft sentence is in a pending-judgement state, which does not show that either party lacks authority. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three different facts; a quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period, and no authorisation clause may be supplied to fill the gap.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the sample contract text and the draft sentence, then compare the share amount in the draft sentence with the contract ratio multiplied by the report sales amount. Expected observation: when the draft amount does not match the calculation from the contract field, the output should mark that field as a contradiction and keep the original quotation.
- Enter the shrinkage-bearing ratio that the sample contract does not state, and compare the field coverage of the draft sentence against the contract text. Expected observation: when the contract does not state that field, the output marks it as unsupported and does not produce a negative conclusion.
- Enter a handover request that is pending review, and compare the request status against the authorisation boundary. Expected observation: while the request is pending review, the output records it as awaiting verification and performs no write or synchronisation action. For the retrieval check, use a clearly paper input of [] to check the empty-result hand-off design, without claiming that a fictional rule search must return [].