What the documents look like
Price and display audits occur during routine store operations, a different stage from franchise training and opening coaching. The materials come from supervision systems, POS price lists, store cameras and headquarters promotion calendars, and they update weekly or monthly. This page addresses the task of inventory procurement and supplier records. The daily documents include store visit photos, price tag lists, display standards and rectification notices.
When these materials enter workflow routing, four things must be kept separate: behaviour a node already has, fields that are actually configurable, manual comparison actions, and business actions that require a separate system interface. The Form Input node enters an interactive 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 recorded interactive state is behaviour of the interactive node; no separate global state-recording switch is documented. Retrieval or form collection does not constitute authorized execution. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The routing constraints for inventory procurement and supplier records centre on material status and authorization boundaries. Store visit photos, price tag lists, display standards and rectification notices are evidence from different stages. A pending review does not 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. The same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library applies only to that library; it does not extend to business registration sites or other external systems. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. An empty result can be handled by comparing a paper input of [] against downstream design, without asserting that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
The optional paths listed in an overall document flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to settings.
Hypothetical drill sample: a regional supervisor in a chain operations department holds a paper record of a store visit photo note. The original text reads: "Week 2 of March 2025, the price tag list for a Category A store shows one item's marked price is consistent with the headquarters promotion calendar, display standard execution is in place, and no rectification notice was issued." A draft sentence awaits judgment: "The supplier records for this store have been signed and are effective, and the procurement order can be executed." The materials available for comparison contain only the store visit photo note and the price tag list. They do not state supplier record signing, effectiveness or authorization terms. Judgment must concern the same subject, the same period and the same field. The draft sentence concerns supplier record status, a different field from the available materials, so it is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centres on this page's sample and on documented settings or implementation checks. Numeric values are starting points for this hypothetical trial only, with the reason for choosing them and the comparison object stated.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input required fields | Store visit date, store category, price tag list status | Compare field by field against the paper sample; missing fields remain missing |
| User Selection branch | "Yes" branch connected to a downstream comparison node | Verify branch connections one by one; do not assume automatic judgment |
| Interactive state check | Recorded state is behaviour of the interactive node | No separate global state-recording switch is set |
| Output handover check | Collected information passed to later retrieval or judgment nodes | Compare output against input item by item; no guarantee of a first hit |
| External action division | Order writes and document backfill use a separate business interface | Form collection does not constitute authorized execution |
| Empty result handling | Paper input [] compared against downstream design | Do not assert that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [] |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending review status as the absence of operating permission. In the hypothetical sample, the store visit photo note states only that the price tag list is consistent with the promotion calendar. It does not state supplier record signing status. If the draft sentence is written as "supplier records have been signed and are effective" on this basis, an unstated field has been treated as a confirmed fact, which is unsupported.
- Treating retrieval or form collection as authorized execution. In the hypothetical sample, the Form Input node collects store visit date and price tag list status, and passes them to later nodes after submission. Concluding from this that a procurement order can be executed confuses information collection with business authorization. Order writes require a separate business interface.
- Treating a relevance score as an entity or permission filter. In the hypothetical sample, retrieval returns a price tag list related fragment, and the relevance score reflects only textual similarity. Excluding other stores or supplier records on this basis mistakes a similarity setting for permission isolation. Retrieval does not perform permission or entity isolation.
How to verify the setup
- For the hypothetical sample draft sentence "The supplier records for this store have been signed and are effective, and the procurement order can be executed," the input is the original text of the store visit photo note and price tag list, and the comparison object is the fields for supplier record signing, effectiveness and authorization terms. If the original text does not state these fields, the judgment is unsupported, and the evidence gap is retained without fabricating authorization or effectiveness terms.
- For the hypothetical sample Form Input node, the input is store visit date, store category and price tag list status, and the comparison object is the fields actually received by later retrieval or judgment nodes. If the information is not clearly passed to later nodes after submission, or a branch connection is missing, the output handover does not meet the condition, and output and input must be compared item by item.
- For the hypothetical sample retrieval observation, the input is a price tag list related query, and the comparison object is the returned fragment and the relevance score. If an empty result is returned, compare paper input [] against downstream design; do not assert that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. If a fragment is returned, record the actual observation; no guarantee of a first hit or full recall is made. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together. Check identifiers first, exclude non-conforming ones, and record the actual observation.