What the documents look like
Weighing and sorting in fresh-food fulfillment happens inside the warehouse, and the controlling facts are weight and specification. The working materials are sorting task sheets, weighing labels, short-weight compensation forms and quality inspection records, drawn from the warehouse management system, electronic scales, the order system and inspection photographs. Updates arrive per order and daily. Contract-and-transaction comparison in this category concentrates on differences in weight, specification and the basis for compensation. Tool calls read only the context passed into the current request, so one comparison result cannot serve as a long-lived authorization credential.
A sorting task sheet may state an order number, a product, a specification range and a quantity. A weighing label for the same order and date may state the actual weighed value. A compensation form may state a claimed shortfall. An inspection record may state a quality finding. These four materials share an order number and a date, and they disagree or agree on specific fields. The comparison task is to check whether a proposed conclusion sentence is supported by the wording actually present in those materials.
Constraints at the tool calls step
The tool call node decides whether to invoke a tool from the tool description, the parameter descriptions and whether each parameter is required. Where a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may decline to call the tool; a prompt can guide the user to supply the value, and the actual request should then be checked. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the guidance is to start with a small number of tools and tune before adding more. A tool call termination node placed after a tool forcibly ends that invocation: no further tools run and the AI does not summarize the tool result. Custom variables extend tool inputs for nodes that are not treated as tool parameters, so those nodes can be invoked with a supplied description. Retrieval results do not by themselves constitute authorization, and a similarity score does not perform permission or entity isolation.
Hypothetical drill sample, labelled as such: a front warehouse sorting task sheet states "Order A-001, product frozen shrimp, specification 500 g ± 10 g, quantity 2 units, sorting date 5 March." A weighing label of the same date states "Order A-001, frozen shrimp, actual weight 468 g, label date 5 March." The proposed conclusion sentence is "The frozen shrimp for this order has been sorted to the 500 g ± 10 g specification and handed over." Both materials share the same subject, the same period and the same weight field. The actual weighed value of 468 g falls within the specification range of 450 g to 550 g, so the weight field alone does not conflict with the specification. Whether handover occurred is not stated in either material.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Comparison and explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State that the comparison target is the sorting task sheet and the weighing label, and state that the tool does not decide handover completion | Compare sentence by sentence against the proposed conclusion sentence; confirm the description does not imply authorization |
| Required parameters | Order number, product, specification range, actual weighed value | If any is absent, record that the model did not call the tool; do not supply a fabricated value |
| Tool connection | Connect only the comparison tool needed for this page | After connecting, check whether the actual request carries complete parameters |
| Tool call termination | Place after the comparison tool | Observe whether AI summarization is no longer invoked |
| Custom variable | Add a description for the quality inspection record node | Check whether the description is passed in as a parameter |
| Retrieval scope | Limited to the target retrieval scope the requester may access | If absent, record the evidence gap |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit or similarity score as authorization and outputting "sorting and handover completed." The input is the proposed conclusion sentence plus the two materials; the comparison is whether the materials state a handover status; the observation is that neither states it, so the conclusion is recorded as unsupported.
- Treating a non-call caused by a missing required parameter as a comparison failure. The input is a request missing the specification range; the comparison is whether the model called the tool; the observation of no call is recorded as a parameter gap, with no business conclusion inferred.
- Treating tool call termination as automatic approval. The input is the termination node placed after the comparison tool; the comparison is whether AI summarization runs again; the observation that it does not run shows only that the invocation ended, and does not show that compensation or handover was executed.
How to verify the setup
- Using the hypothetical sample above, input the proposed conclusion sentence and the two source materials, compare the weight field values, and observe that the actual weighed value falls within the specification range; the result should be marked as pending verification, and no completed-sorting output should be produced.
- Using the same hypothetical sample, remove the specification range and issue the request; compare whether the model calls the comparison tool; observe that no call occurs and record the missing required parameter, without fabricating a value.
- Using the paper input [] to check the downstream design, compare whether the downstream still attempts summarization on an empty result; the condition is met when no business conclusion is produced. If a system error appears, record the actual observation and do not assert a cause.