What the documents look like
Work in this category turns on four document types: promotional price tags, membership points rules, daily checkout reports and exception refund slips. The main data sources are the POS system, the membership CRM, the payment platform and the price tag system. The typical roles involved are store checkout supervisors, CRM operations staff and finance auditors. Compared with fresh food ordering in convenience retail, this category concentrates on price and membership entitlements and does not handle short-shelf-life inventory, so workflow routing here receives mostly text-shaped documents and lacks shelf-life or batch fields. The brief states two update frequencies, daily and per shift. This page records those labels only and does not derive batch synchronization, full synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms from them.
For procurement and supplier records, the practical consequence is that routing decisions rest on price validity, points rule versions and refund handling status rather than on stock rotation. A price tag document carries a store, a date range, an item, a promotional price and a review status. A points rule document carries a rule version. Neither document by itself carries an approval record, and the workflow routing step must not treat the presence of a document as the presence of an approval.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user completes the required fields and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded; when the user makes a selection, the node evaluates that selection and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and both trigger execution. The documentation describes these node behaviours and does not describe a global switch for state recording, a submission count limit, automatic judgement or snapshot guarantees.
Confirmations that belong to people, such as a checkout supervisor confirming the effective scope of a promotional price tag or CRM operations confirming a points rule version, land on these interaction nodes. The nodes collect and pass values. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or subsequent flow. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorization to execute.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample, clearly labelled as hypothetical and not drawn from any real record: a store checkout supervisor submits a promotional price tag review request whose source text reads "Store A, 1 March 2025 to 7 March 2025, item M promotional price 9.9 yuan, membership points calculated at 1x under the base rule, price tag system status pending review." A separate proposed sentence reads "The price tag is already effective, settlement may proceed at 9.9 yuan and points may be synchronized." The request awaiting judgement reads "Please write the above price tag status into the supplier records and notify the checkout counter to execute." The source text contains a subject, an object, a time range and a status. The status is pending review, and no approval record is stated.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check on this page | Basis and explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect store, date range, item, promotional price, points rule version | Documentation states submitted information is passed to subsequent nodes |
| User Selection node | Set a "confirm review / return for supplement" branch | Documentation states the node executes the "yes" branch after a user selection |
| Interaction state check | Check that triggering enters the interaction state and records state | Documentation describes this as interaction node behaviour; no separate global switch is set |
| Output handover check | Compare form output item by item against the inputs of subsequent retrieval or judgement nodes | Documentation states information is passed to subsequent nodes |
| External action separation | Price tag status writes, supplier record backfill and checkout counter notification connect to a separate business interface | Documentation states a separate business interface or subsequent flow is required |
| Retrieval scope check | Check that the target knowledge base identifier and the vector model identifier match | Knowledge bases on different vector models cannot be associated together |
This page does not specify a numeric starting value. If a trial starting value is needed, it requires a separate stated reason and a comparison method, and it is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending review status as already effective. The sample source text states "price tag system status pending review," while the proposed sentence states "the price tag is already effective." Both concern the same subject, the same period and the same field, and the values are mutually exclusive, which constitutes a contradiction. The check should identify the difference in that field value and must not write to supplier records on the basis of the proposed sentence.
- Treating form submission as authorization to execute. After submission, the Form Input node only passes information to subsequent nodes; order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or subsequent flow. The sample request asks for a write and a checkout counter notification, and no approval record is stated, so the item remains pending verification.
- Using a relevance score in place of a permission or entity filter. The same-vector-model requirement for knowledge bases applies only to knowledge bases that can be associated together. It does not extend to business registration sites or other external systems, and a similarity value cannot be used to exclude unrelated business records or unauthorized records.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the proposed sentence, then compare the value of the "price tag system status" field. The source text gives "pending review" and the proposed sentence gives "already effective." The two values are mutually exclusive. The expected observation is that the contradiction is identified and the evidence gap is retained, with no determination that the tag is effective.
- Input the sample request "Please write the above price tag status into the supplier records and notify the checkout counter to execute," then compare the actions in the request against the documented node behaviour. The node collects and passes values; the write and the notification require a separate interface. The expected observation is that the item is marked as requiring downstream implementation and is not treated as executed.
- Input a paper empty result
[]and check the downstream design, comparing whether the downstream node has an explicit way of handling empty input. The expected observation is that the empty-result handover is recorded. This does not assert that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns[], and it does not guarantee a first hit or full recall.
For retrieval checks, record what is observed and what the failure branch looks like. Cross-model knowledge bases cannot be associated together; check the identifiers first and exclude those that do not match, rather than running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall. Optional paths shown in a document flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them: image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to its settings. A pending review does not by itself demonstrate the absence of operating permission. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period. Do not manufacture authorization or effectiveness clauses to obtain a determinate answer; state the evidence gap explicitly.