What the documents look like
Brand-owned stores are staffed and accounted for directly by the brand, so store inventory purchasing and supplier records sit with the brand retail company, store managers and regional managers rather than with a franchise contract. The main data sources named in the brief are the POS system, member CRM, ERP inventory and store inspections. The daily and weekly documents that feed this task include daily sales reports, shift schedules, display photos and inventory transfer orders. For the workflow routing step, the materials that matter are the transfer request, supplier quotation and contract status that a store submits into a conversation, together with whatever downstream node receives them.
The brief rates this picture as broadly accurate, so the routing design should treat the document set as a working assumption rather than a fixed catalogue. Update frequency is daily and weekly; where that rhythm does not change routing behaviour it can be set aside, and it should not be stretched into batch, full-volume, real-time or transaction-triggered mechanisms that the brief does not describe.
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 execution continues after the user completes the interaction. Once the user fills the required information and submits, the node collects the form values and passes them to later nodes. The User Selection node behaves in the same interaction pattern: when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and runs the corresponding "yes" branch. The documented behaviour is the interaction state and the state record; the routing design still has to check that trigger, wait and continuation are actually connected, and that each branch is wired individually.
Collected values must be passed explicitly to the later retrieval, decision or interface node, and the output of the form must be compared item by item against what the downstream node receives. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronisation need a separate business interface or a later process; the interaction nodes do not perform those business actions. Retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorisation to execute. The authorisation state of a material at operations handover has to be checked separately.
Hypothetical drill sample, supplied for this page only: a store manager of a brand-owned store submits an inventory transfer request. The source text reads: "Requesting store: Store A (brand-owned); source warehouse: Regional Warehouse B; item: summer short-sleeve, size M; requested quantity: 30 units; request date: 10 June 2025; requester: Store Manager Zhang; approval status is pending regional manager review." A draft sentence is also under review: "The transfer request has been approved and the warehouse can be notified to ship." The subject, object and status needed for the judgement are all present in the source text, and the approval status field reads "pending regional manager review".
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below ties the documented node behaviour to this sample. The quantity of 30 units comes from the hypothetical request and is used only to compare the form value with the value the downstream node receives; it is not a FastGPT default. The available ERP stock for the same item is not provided, so the 30-unit request cannot support a conclusion that the stock is transferable or that authorisation exists.
| Configuration item | Documented basis | Check against this sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Triggering enters the interaction state and collects required information | Check whether the transfer request fields are collected as required items |
| User Selection node | The user's choice runs the "yes" branch | Check whether the approval branch is connected individually |
| Interaction state record | Interaction nodes record the workflow state | Check whether trigger, wait and continuation join up |
| Output handover | Collected information is passed to later nodes | Compare the form output with the downstream input item by item |
| External action split | Writing and synchronisation need a separate interface | Check whether the shipping notice is handled by an external process |
Three common errors
- Treating the form value "approval status is pending regional manager review" as a completed approval. The input is the form field value, the comparison object is the approval status value, and the observable result is that a pending review is misread as approved.
- Treating the User Selection "yes" branch connection as authorised execution. The input is the branch direction, the comparison object is the actual approval action, and the observable result is that a branch run is mistaken for an approval taking effect.
- Treating retrieved supplier material as a permission filter result. The input is the retrieved content, the comparison object is the authorisation scope of the material, and the observable result is that a retrieval hit is mistaken for executable purchasing.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the sample source text and the draft sentence. Compare the draft phrase "has been approved" with the source field "pending regional manager review". If the draft sentence disagrees with the approval status field in the source text, the draft sentence is unsupported and the evidence gap stays open.
- Enter "requested quantity: 30 units" from the sample. Compare the form numeric field with the value received by the downstream decision node. If the two agree, the form output handover is correct; if they disagree, record a handover error.
- Enter a clearly labelled paper input of an empty result, written as []. Compare whether the downstream node is designed to handle an empty-result branch. If the downstream node has no defined handling for an empty result, record it as a design gap still to be completed. Do not assert that a fictional rule retrieval will necessarily return an empty result.
Across these checks, a relevance score is not a category, entity or permission filter, and retrieval is not authorisation. Where the brief or the node documentation leaves a field unstated, that field remains unknown.