What the documents look like
Document comparison for store counts and loss control works on count sheets, variance analyses, loss-report approvals, and surveillance review records. These materials do not concern supplier payables. The focus is book-to-physical variance and shrinkage. Typical operating roles are the loss-prevention department, store inventory keepers, and financial auditors. Data sources include POS inventory, WMS, surveillance systems, and the SB/T counting standard. Update frequency is monthly or quarterly; this page does not infer batch synchronization or real-time triggers from that frequency.
A count sheet records physical counts and book counts. A variance analysis records the differing SKUs and the stated reason. A loss-report approval records application, review, and approval status. A surveillance review record logs review time, scope, and reason. During comparison, the subject, period, and fields must align; otherwise the result stays pending verification.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Workflow routing here handles material collection, branch decisions, and downstream passing. The form input node enters an interaction state when triggered, collects required information, and passes that information to later nodes after submission. The user selection node executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a choice. The interaction state is recorded by the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch is documented.
Hypothetical drill sample: a store's March 2025 count sheet states "Category A goods: physical count 120 units, book count 135 units, variance -15 units." The variance analysis states "variance reason: damage loss report; loss report number pending." The loss-report approval record states "loss report application submitted; approval status is pending review." The proposed sentence is "The store's 15-unit Category A variance has completed loss-report approval and write-off is approved." Question: does the proposed sentence match the materials?
In this sample, the loss-report approval is pending review. Pending review does not demonstrate completed approval, and it does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission. The proposed sentence presents pending review as completed, which is unsupported. Retrieval or form collection of materials does not constitute authorized execution; loss write-off, database writes, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later process. Libraries on different vector models cannot be associated together; verify identifiers first and exclude non-matching items rather than running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls. Empty-result handling can be checked against an explicit paper input of [] for downstream design; do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Purpose on this page | Setting or check method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect material fields for count sheets, variance analyses, loss-report approvals, and surveillance review records | Enters interaction state when triggered; passes collected information to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Branch on the proposed sentence or handover request | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user chooses; verify each branch connection |
| Interaction state check | Confirm the conversation enters interaction state and records workflow state | Check against documented interaction-node behavior; no separate global switch |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information to later retrieval, decision, or interface nodes | Compare output against input item by item; state the transfer target |
| External action split | Loss write-off, document backfill, external status synchronization | Requires a separate business interface or later process; forms do not replace authorization |
| Retrieval scope check | Confirm materials fall within an authorized target retrieval scope | Verify identifiers and exclude non-matching items; relevance is not a permission filter |
This page's hypothetical trial starting point: set the proposed-sentence decision threshold to the two values "pending review" and "completed." This starting point is chosen because the sample's loss-report approval status field has only these two opposing values. The comparison method is a literal comparison of the material text against the proposed sentence for the same field value.
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as completed approval. In the sample, the loss-report approval record states "approval status is pending review," while the proposed sentence says "completed loss-report approval." The input is the original loss-report approval record; the comparison object is the approval status field; the observable result is that the two values disagree, which should be judged unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorized execution. In the sample, the surveillance review record only logs the review action and does not state write-off permission. The input is the surveillance review record; the comparison object is whether an authorization clause is stated; the observable result is that no authorization is stated, which should be recorded as an evidence gap.
- Mixing materials from different periods or different fields. In the sample, the count sheet period is March 2025. If a loss report from another period is introduced as support, the input is two materials with different periods; the comparison object is the period field; the observable result is a period mismatch, which should be judged not directly comparable.
How to verify the setup
- Use the hypothetical sample's proposed sentence "The store's 15-unit Category A variance has completed loss-report approval and write-off is approved" as input, compare the approval status field of the loss-report approval record, and observe whether the values "pending review" and "completed" disagree. A disagreement satisfies the unsupported judgment; no actual test is claimed.
- Use the hypothetical sample's loss-report approval record as input, compare whether a write-off authorization or effective clause is stated, and observe whether an authorization field appears. If no authorization field appears, record the evidence gap; do not fabricate an authorization clause.
- Use a paper input of [] to check the empty-result handoff design, and observe whether downstream nodes handle the empty-result branch. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []; only check whether the downstream design accepts an empty result.