What the documents look like
Procurement and supplier records in a multi-store matrix are built around four document types: store authorization lists, price control tables, cross-territory complaint forms, and monthly sales reports. Compared with single-store operation, this category gives more attention to cross-store authorization scope and price order. The records originate from platform merchant back offices, ERP channel prices, brand anti-counterfeiting systems, and distributor reports, and they refresh on a daily and monthly basis.
For the procurement and supplier task, these documents decide two things: whether a given store's procurement request sits inside its authorized scope, and which authorization list a supplier record corresponds to. A store authorization list names the stores, the brand or object, and the validity window. A price control table states suggested retail and minimum transaction values. A cross-territory complaint form records a reported diversion. A monthly sales report gives period totals. None of these documents by itself grants execution rights.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Workflow routing here is carried by the Form Input node and the User Selection node. When the Form Input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, required fields are collected, and after submission the collected values pass to subsequent nodes. When the User Selection node triggers, the conversation likewise enters an interaction state; once the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. The interaction state is behavior of the interaction node itself; no separate global state switch is documented. Collected values must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Neither a retrieval hit nor a completed form constitutes authorization.
Hypothetical drill sample. The authorization list reads: "Store A is authorized to procure Brand X goods from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025; Store B is not listed on this list." The price control table reads: "Brand X suggested retail price 120; minimum transaction price 100." The draft sentence to be assessed reads: "Store B submits a Brand X procurement request, to be executed on its behalf by Store A under Store A's authorization." Subject, object, and status all require checking: Store B is absent from the authorization list, and execution on behalf is not stated anywhere, so this is an evidence gap.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Correspondence to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Enters interaction state on trigger; collects required fields | Collects subject, brand, and quantity of the procurement request |
| User Selection node | Executes the "yes" branch after the user chooses | Determines which branch the Store B request follows |
| Output handoff | Passes collected values to a later retrieval or judgment node | Passes the request values to the authorization-list check |
| Retrieval scope | Retrieves only within the range stated in the documents; performs no permission filtering | Retrieves the authorization list and the price control table |
| External action split | Order writes, document backfill, external sync attach separately | Execution on behalf requires a separate business interface; not performed here |
| Hypothetical trial baseline | This hypothetical trial compares against the authorization-list wording | Field-by-field comparison with the draft sentence; not an official default |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. Retrieving Store A's authorization record does not mean Store B holds execution-on-behalf rights. Check: input the draft sentence, compare whether Store B appears on the authorization list, and record an evidence gap when it does not appear.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the User Selection node as an approval already granted. Branch execution shows only the direction of the flow; it does not show that business approval is complete. Check: compare the branch outcome against the status stated in the authorization list, and keep the item pending verification when the two do not match.
- Treating form-collected values as verified data. A form collects what was entered; business verification requires a separate downstream implementation. Check: compare the form values field by field against the authorization-list wording, and mark missing fields as unknown.
How to verify the setup
- Input the draft sentence and the authorization-list wording from the hypothetical sample, and compare whether Store B is listed. The expected observation is that Store B does not appear; the request is then judged pending verification, and is not judged as a denial or a conflict.
- Input the price control table wording and the draft sentence, and compare whether the draft sentence states a transaction price. The expected observation is that no transaction price is stated; the price field remains unknown, and no authorization or effective clause is supplied to fill the gap.
- Input an explicit paper empty result
[]and check whether downstream nodes are designed to accept an empty result. The expected observation is that downstream produces no business write. The actual return must be based on runtime observation; an empty query is not guaranteed to return empty.
Across all three checks, judgments require the same subject, the same period, and the same field. Only mutually exclusive values in one field constitute a contradiction. A field that is not stated, or that has evidence only for a related stage, is unsupported or pending verification, and is not a denial or a conflict. A pending review does not show that an operating permission is missing. Signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. A quotation validity window does not indicate a supply period. Authorization or effective clauses are not invented to obtain a definite answer; the evidence gap is preserved.