What the documents look like
Omnichannel stock transfer work moves goods between stores and warehouses. It does not handle marketing outreach. The main data comes from ERP inventory, store POS, e-commerce orders and WMS. The daily documents are transfer requests, inventory snapshots, store shortage lists and transfer logistics notes. In store service and internal training, these materials support handover checks and practice exercises. Forms collect values, and interactive nodes wait for the user and record workflow state.
A transfer request carries a requesting body, an object, a quantity, a date and a status. A store shortage list names the store and the missing item. A transfer logistics note follows the movement after approval. A snapshot records stock at a point in time. None of these documents by itself grants execution authority. The status field on the request is the field that shows whether the request is still waiting or has moved forward.
Constraints at the interactive forms 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 waits until the user completes the interaction. After the user submits the required information, the node collects the filled values and passes them to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters the interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits. When the user makes a choice, the node judges that choice and runs the "yes" branch. Neither node includes a business database. Field validation, business approval, write-back and bulk operations need implementation in an external system or in later nodes. Retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source text of the material reads "Transfer request A-017; requesting body: East China store service group; object: spring coats transferred from store M12 to regional warehouse W3; quantity: 40 units; request date: 10 March 2025; status is awaiting regional warehouse keeper review." The draft handover request sentence to be judged reads "A-017 has passed review and may proceed to transfer outbound." The source text shows only awaiting review. It does not state that review passed and does not state outbound authorization. The request sentence is not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Interaction node | Enters the interaction state when triggered; after submission, collects the filled information and passes it to later nodes |
| Required field check | Manual review | Lists the body, object, quantity, date and status that this task cannot omit |
| User selection node | Interaction node | Runs a branch according to the user's choice; does not act as a personnel directory |
| Field validation split | Later implementation | Validation, approval and write-back are completed in an external system or later nodes as needed |
| Interaction state record | Existing node behavior | Waits for the interaction to complete, then continues downward |
| Hypothetical trial starting value | Paper setting | This sample uses 40 units, compared with the quantity in the source request; not an official default |
Three common errors
- Treating "awaiting regional warehouse keeper review" as review passed, and then treating outbound execution as available. The check compares the status field in the source text with the status description in the request sentence.
- Treating the user selection node as a personnel directory or a business data selector. This node only runs a branch according to the choice.
- Treating form submission as completed business authorization or a database write. Submission only collects values and passes them to later nodes.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text and the draft request sentence given above. Compare the status field "awaiting regional warehouse keeper review" with the request sentence "has passed review." The request sentence is supported only when the source text states that review passed and states outbound authorization clearly. The present observation is that the request sentence is not supported.
- Input a form entry that omits the body or omits the quantity. Compare it with the required field list. The condition is met only when the missing item is identified and execution can continue after the item is supplied.
- Input the choice result of the user selection node. Compare the branch taken. The condition is met only when the choice corresponds to the "yes" branch and execution continues. A retrieval check records observations and failure branches. It does not guarantee a first hit or full recall.
A retrieval check that returns an empty result can be carried into downstream design using a clearly paper input of an empty list. This does not claim that a fictional rule search must return an empty list. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together. Check the identifiers first and exclude those that do not match. Do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall. The optional paths shown in the overall document flow do not mean every request executes all of them. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability. Reranking requires the model and must be enabled in settings. Thinking budget is a reasoning budget and is not a reference token limit.
Judgment must use the same subject, the same period and the same field. Only clearly mutually exclusive values in the same field count as a contradiction. A field that is not stated, or evidence that covers only a related stage, is unsupported or pending verification. It is not a negation or a conflict. Awaiting review does not show a lack of operating permission. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three separate facts. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period. Do not add authorization or effectiveness clauses to obtain a definite answer. Keep the evidence gap explicit. Materials needed for a check must sit inside an accessible target retrieval scope or a clear manual input. When they are missing, record the gap.