What the documents look like
Fresh-food supplier claims pursue responsibility for quality at arrival and do not handle natural in-store shrinkage. That boundary sets the scope of comparison material. Quality inspection system records, WMS acceptance results, supplier contract clauses and financial reconciliation data together form the basis for judgement. Day-to-day documents include quality exception forms, photo evidence, deduction notices and claim reconciliation statements. Each arrival batch generates new acceptance and inspection records, and reconciliation material forms monthly. Fixing evidence, calculating deductions and negotiating compensation or replacement are the time-consuming stages, and the correspondence between fixed evidence and contract clauses directly affects whether a later deduction can stand.
The documents differ in role. A quality exception form records an inspection conclusion for a batch. A contract clause states the condition under which a deduction may be initiated and how the amount is computed. A deduction notice is a draft that carries quantity and unit price. A claim reconciliation statement aggregates positions across a period. Comparison work has to keep the batch identity, the clause identity and the amount fields aligned, because a conclusion drawn from one batch does not transfer to another.
Constraints at the tool calls step
Tool calls let the model decide from context whether to execute a module or plugin. The tool description states what the tool does; the parameter description and the whether-required flag together affect the call decision. Where a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may not call the tool, and interaction can guide the user to supply the parameter before the actual request content is checked. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the documentation advises tuning a small number of tools before adding more. A tool call termination node, once connected, ends the current call, stops further tool calls and stops the AI from summarising tool results. A custom tool variable extends the variable input so that nodes not treated as tool parameters can still be called.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample
Material text supplied for checking:
Quality exception form QA-2024-0312 states: for arrival batch A-0312 on 12 March 2024, acceptance found the yellow-leaf proportion of leafy vegetables outside the range agreed in Annex 2 of the contract, and the inspection conclusion is non-conforming. Clause 7.2 of the supplier contract provides: a non-conforming batch at acceptance may trigger a deduction, and the deduction amount is calculated as non-conforming quantity multiplied by unit price. Deduction notice draft CN-0312 lists a quantity of 120 kg, a unit price of 6, and a total of 720.
Draft sentence to be judged:
On the basis of quality exception form QA-2024-0312 and clause 7.2, the amount in deduction notice CN-0312 is correctly calculated and may be submitted to the supplier directly.
Points for judgement: the quality exception form and the contract clause point to the same batch and the same quality conclusion; the unit price and quantity in the deduction notice need to agree with the contract provision and the acceptance record. The phrase "may be submitted directly" concerns an authorisation state. The material does not state that approval has been completed, so that part remains to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State the input conditions and the situations in which the tool should not be called | Trigger comparison only when a quality exception form and a contract clause are present |
| Tool parameters | Check plugin configurable parameters and system module fixed parameters separately | Parameters need to cover batch number, clause number and amount fields |
| Required parameters | Where no suitable value exists the model may not call; complete through interaction | When the batch number is missing, guide completion, then check the request |
| Tool connection | In advanced orchestration connect available tools; tune a small number first | Connect the comparison tool and the contract lookup tool |
| Tool call termination | Once connected, the call ends and no AI summary follows | Terminate after comparison so no extra summary is produced |
| Custom tool variable | Fill in a parameter description for nodes not treated as parameters | Bring the deduction notice node into the callable range |
Hypothetical starting point for this exercise: connect the tool call termination node after the comparison tool. The reason for choosing that position is that the comparison result has already been checked by a person and does not need a model summary; compare against the output length when the termination node is not connected.
Three common errors
- Treating a tool parameter description as a guarantee of execution. A parameter description only explains what the parameter means; it does not mean the call will occur or that the result is correct. In checking, compare the parameter values in the actual request and observe whether they agree with the quality exception form and the contract clause.
- Assuming the model will call when a required parameter is missing. In the sample, when the batch number or clause number is absent, the model may not call the comparison tool. Check whether the input carries the complete identifiers and observe whether the request carries that value after interactive completion.
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorised execution. The phrase "may be submitted directly" in the draft sentence needs an approval state to support it, and the material does not state that approval is complete. Check whether an approval record exists and observe whether the submission action has an authorisation basis.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the text of quality exception form QA-2024-0312 and the text of contract clause 7.2, and compare whether the quantity of 120 kg and unit price of 6 in deduction notice CN-0312 agree with the acceptance record and the contract provision. Observe whether the comparison result marks the correspondence of the three fields and whether the unstated approval state is kept as pending verification.
- Verification two: input a deduction notice draft with no batch number and compare whether the tool is not called because a required parameter is missing. Observe whether the interaction prompts for the batch number and whether the actual request carries that value after completion. If no call occurs, record it as an observation of a missing required parameter.
- Verification three: input the draft sentence "may be submitted directly to the supplier" and compare whether an approval completion record exists in the material. Observe whether the output marks "may be submitted directly" as pending verification and whether it avoids treating a pending-review state as approved. If the material has no approval record, keep the evidence gap.
All three verifications use the hypothetical sample as input and do not claim that testing has been carried out. Retrieval and relevance do not carry permission or entity isolation functions; libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together, so check identifiers only and exclude those that do not conform.