What the documents look like
Multi-store matrix management handles cross-store authorization and price order. The working materials come from platform merchant backends, ERP channel prices, brand anti-counterfeit systems, and dealer reports. Day-to-day documents include store authorization lists, price control tables, diversion complaint forms, and monthly sales reports. The subject, object, status, and validity scope of these materials are often spread across different sources. A contract and transaction material comparison has to place the same subject, the same period, and the same field side by side before it can judge whether values conflict, remain unsupported, or still need verification.
This page addresses only workflow routing inside contract and transaction material comparison. Interaction nodes collect the information the comparison needs, pass that collected result explicitly to later retrieval or judgment nodes, and keep four things separate: behavior a node already performs, fields that can actually be configured, manual verification actions, and business actions that require a separate system interface. Neither retrieval nor form collection constitutes authorization to execute anything.
Two facts in this category shape the routing step. Cross-store authorization and price order mean the comparison unit is a subject-period-field triple, not a single store record. Because the documents arrive from several systems on daily and monthly cycles, a collected value and a source document value can look aligned while covering different objects or periods. Routing therefore has to carry the comparison scope forward explicitly rather than let a later node infer it.
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 after the user fills the required information 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. It triggers the same interaction state and records workflow state; when the user makes a selection, the node judges that selection and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The recorded interaction state is behavior of the interaction node. No separate global state-recording switch is documented. Collected information must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and output must be compared item by item against input. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process; the interaction nodes do not perform those actions themselves.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A brand e-commerce lead holds the original text of a Store Authorization List containing three sentences: "Authorizing party: Jia Brand Management Co., Ltd.; authorized stores: East China Store A, East China Store B; authorized category: household cleaning agents; authorization period: January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025." A separate Diversion Complaint Form reads: "Complaint target: East China Store B; complaint category: household cleaning agents; complaint date: March 10, 2025; request: verify whether this store sold within its authorized scope." The draft sentence to be judged is: "East China Store B was authorized to sell household cleaning agents on March 10, 2025." The materials needed for comparison are these two original texts, judged on the same subject, the same period, and the same field.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description and starting point for this exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented | Enters interaction state on trigger, collects required information, passes it to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Documented | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a selection; verify branch connections one by one |
| Output handoff check | Implementation check | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes and compare output against input item by item |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | State recording is behavior of the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch is documented |
| External action split | Implementation check | Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later process |
| Retrieval scope check | Implementation check | Materials needed for verification must sit in a target retrieval scope the requester may access, or in explicit manual input; record gaps when missing |
Hypothetical starting point for this exercise: set the form input node's required fields to "authorized store," "authorized category," and "authorization period." The reason is that this sample's judgment needs the same subject, the same period, and the same field. Compare item by item against the Store Authorization List original text and do not compare unrelated fields.
Three common errors
- Treating a store name collected by the form as an authorization conclusion and passing it downstream. The input is the user-entered "East China Store B." The comparison object is "authorized stores: East China Store A, East China Store B" in the Store Authorization List original text. The observable result is whether the two agree. Form collection alone does not complete an authorization judgment.
- Treating the user selection node's "yes" branch as a business approval. The input is the user's selection of "yes." The comparison object is the actual record of approval or signature status. The observable result is whether a signed or effective authorization document exists. A pending review does not show that operating permission is absent, and a selection branch does not constitute approval execution.
- Treating a retrieval hit as executable authorization. The input is the Store Authorization List fragment returned by retrieval. The comparison object is the coverage relationship between the authorization period and the complaint date. The observable result is whether March 10, 2025 falls inside January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025. Retrieval does not handle permission or entity isolation, and retrieval is not authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Using the hypothetical original texts and draft sentence above, input the Store Authorization List original text and the Diversion Complaint Form original text, compare the subject, period, and category fields, and observe whether the draft sentence "East China Store B was authorized to sell household cleaning agents on March 10, 2025" is supported by the original texts. The expected observation is that the authorization period covers the complaint date, while the sales act itself is not stated in the original texts. That sentence is unsupported or pending verification; it is not judged as a denial or a conflict.
- Use the form input node to collect "authorized store," "authorized category," and "authorization period." After submission, check whether the output is passed explicitly to a later retrieval or judgment node and compare output against input item by item. The expected observation is that the collected values appear in the downstream input. If the downstream node does not receive them, record the gap and do not claim automatic judgment or snapshot guarantees.
- Use the user selection node to set a "continue verification" branch. After the user selects "yes," check whether the corresponding branch executes, and verify branch connections one by one. The expected observation is that the "yes" branch is triggered. That trigger does not mean approval passed, does not mean the contract took effect, and does not mean an external system has synchronized. Signature, cooperation reached, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts.
An empty-result handoff can be checked with the explicit paper input [] against the downstream design; do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together. Check identifiers first and exclude those that do not match, then record the actual observation. Do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.