What the documents look like
Fruit-store procurement runs on four recurring documents: purchase orders, acceptance records, pesticide-residue test reports and loss records. Their inputs come from wholesale-market quotations, supplier quotes, store sales and test reports, and they change daily or per batch. Procurement and acceptance here lean on wholesale-market conditions and grade-based inspection rather than a head-office standard meal specification. In workflow routing, the values collected through a form input node — purchase quantity, grade, supplier name — must be carried item by item against the acceptance record and the test report. Retrieval and forms collect and pass information; they do not authorize execution.
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. The user selection node behaves the same way and, once the user makes a choice, executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Information collected in these nodes has to be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Recording the interaction state is node behavior; no global state-recording switch is documented.
Hypothetical drill sample: a store fresh-produce supervisor submits a purchase-order draft reading "Supplier A, apples grade 1, quantity 200 jin, quote date 2025-03-01, acceptance standard subject to a passing pesticide-residue test report." A second sentence is proposed for review: "Supplier A has confirmed supply, quote valid until 2025-03-05." The source text states only the quote date; it states nothing about supply confirmation, signature or contract effectiveness. Review compares subject, object, status and validity scope, and any missing field stays pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented official behavior | Enters the interaction state on trigger, collects required information and passes it to later nodes |
| User selection node | Documented official behavior | Executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user chooses; verify each branch connection |
| Interaction-state check | Implementation check | Confirm whether the node records state; make no claim of a global state switch |
| Output hand-off check | Implementation check | Compare collected values item by item against the inputs of later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes |
| External-action separation | Implementation check | Order writing, document backfill and external synchronization require a separate business interface or later process |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Hypothetical for this page | Use 200 jin and quote date 2025-03-01 as the comparison start; compare the acceptance-record quantity and the test-report status |
Three common errors
- Treating the supplier name collected by the form input node as authorization to supply. Input: Supplier A, apples grade 1, 200 jin. Comparison object: the purchase order against the acceptance record. Observable result: whether subject, quantity and grade match across the two documents; a mismatch is recorded as pending verification.
- Treating execution of the user selection node's "yes" branch as an external order already written. Input: the selection result. Comparison object: whether a later interface node actually receives it. Observable result: whether an independent write or synchronization implementation exists.
- Treating the quote validity date as the supply period. Input: quote date 2025-03-01 and validity until 2025-03-05. Comparison object: the supply-confirmation or contract-effectiveness field. Observable result: whether the source text states that field; when it does not, record the evidence gap.
How to verify the setup
- Use the hypothetical source text "Supplier A, apples grade 1, quantity 200 jin, quote date 2025-03-01" against the proposed sentence "Supplier A has confirmed supply, quote valid until 2025-03-05." Input: the two sentences. Comparison object: the supply-confirmation and contract-effectiveness fields. The condition is met when the proposed sentence shares the same subject, the same period and the same field with matching values as the source; when the source does not state that field, the sentence under review remains unsupported.
- Use a hypothetical input of [] to check empty-result hand-off. Input: an empty reference output. Comparison object: whether the downstream node handles an empty result. The condition is met when downstream produces no fabricated record; make no claim that retrieval necessarily returns [].
- Use a hypothetical purchase order and acceptance record to check quantity and grade. Input: 200 jin, apples grade 1. Comparison object: the values actually recorded on the acceptance record. The condition is met when the same field carries matching values in both documents; a mismatch is recorded as pending verification rather than judged as a contradiction or a denial.