What the documents look like
Receiving and putaway handles the first physical-versus-record confirmation when goods enter a warehouse. The data sources named in the public brief are the warehouse management system, ERP purchasing, supplier delivery notes, and barcode scanning. The documents handled at this stage are purchase arrival notes, receiving inspection notes, putaway tasks, and discrepancy reports. The update rhythm is per batch or per day.
For the comparison task on this page, the material fields that matter are quantity, batch number, counterparty, and status. A tool call node does not perform authorization judgment. Retrieval results and form entries do not constitute approval or release. A pending inspection status is not an approval, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool introduction tells the model what the tool does, and it should state the input conditions and the situations in which the tool should not be called. Tool parameters divide into two kinds: fixed parameters for system modules and configurable parameters for plugins. Each kind is checked separately. The parameter description and the must-have flag are the two key values the model uses when deciding whether to call a tool.
When a must-have parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may not call the tool; interaction can prompt the user to supply the parameter, and the actual request is then checked. When a tool has no must-have parameters, the model may still call it even without a suitable value in context, and it may fabricate a parameter. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the introduction can be edited so the call timing is more precise. The documented guidance is to start with a small number of tools and tune before adding more.
The tool call termination node ends the current call. It does not call other tools, and it does not call the AI to summarize the tool results. Retrieval and semantic recall do not handle permission or entity isolation. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Supplier delivery note text: "Delivering entity: East China Sample Supplier; receiving warehouse: Sample Warehouse One; material: Type A packaging carton; delivered quantity: 200 pieces; delivery date: 3 June 2024; batch number: B240603." Purchase arrival note text: "Purchasing entity: Sample E-commerce Warehouse; material: Type A packaging carton; purchase quantity: 200 pieces; arrival date: 3 June 2024." Receiving inspection note text: "Inspection conclusion: received 180 pieces; discrepancy 20 pieces; inspection status is pending review." Draft sentence to be judged: "This batch has been fully inspected as qualified and putaway is complete." In this sample the counterparty, object, and period agree across the three documents. The quantity fields show 200 against 180. The inspection status is pending review.
Configuration and implementation checks
The following are hypothetical starting points for this exercise and implementation check items. They are not official default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State "compare the quantity fields of the purchase arrival note and the receiving inspection note" | Corresponds to the quantity discrepancy field in the sample; compare whether the call log hits this tool |
| Must-have parameters | Material, batch number, period | The sample contains batch number B240603 and a date; observe whether a call occurs when a parameter is missing |
| Tool connection | Connect only the quantity comparison tool and the discrepancy report query | Fewer tools ease tuning; compare call records before and after connecting |
| Tool call termination | Place after the discrepancy report query | The sample inspection status is pending review; after termination the AI summary is not triggered |
| Custom tool variable | Add a description for the "inspection status" field | The sample carries a pending review status; compare whether the variable is included in the call parameters |
| Retrieval scope | Limit to this warehouse and this batch | Matches the sample counterparty and object; compare whether returned records include other batches |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization to release. In the sample the inspection status is pending review. Retrieving that record does not mean putaway is approved; the approval status field is what gets checked.
- Treating a pending review status as a negative conclusion. The sample states only pending review and does not state rejection. It is recorded as unsupported or awaiting verification.
- Treating a quotation validity period or a delivery date as a supply period or an inspection completion time. The sample delivery date is 3 June 2024, and no inspection completion date is stated. That field remains unknown.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three sample document texts and the draft sentence. Compare whether "fully inspected as qualified" in the draft sentence and "received 180 pieces, discrepancy 20 pieces, pending review" in the inspection note share the same counterparty, the same period, and the same field. If the draft sentence contains a quantity or status that does not match the source text, the judgment is unsupported. This is a paper check and was not executed.
- Input batch number B240603 and the period from the sample. Compare the tool call log to see whether no call was triggered when a must-have parameter was missing. If the log shows no call, that matches the documented behavior when a must-have parameter is absent.
- Input an empty-result downstream scenario, using the paper input [] to check whether the downstream design separates an empty result from an authorization pass. If the downstream marks an empty result directly as eligible for putaway, that is a confusion of retrieval with authorization. These are paper checks and were not executed.