What the documents look like
Peak-sale warehouse and delivery scheduling centers on short-term peak capacity and the arrangement of people, vehicles, and space. This differs from the focus of multi-warehouse inventory synchronization. The main data sources are historical peak-sale orders, platform campaign registrations, WMS capacity, and courier pickup capacity. Day-to-day documents include the peak-sale forecast sheet, staff scheduling, the courier support plan, and the exception daily report. These materials are updated per campaign and daily. For store service and internal training, the task is to collect values submitted by stores and to check handover status against those materials. The update frequency itself does not change how a form node behaves; it only indicates how current the materials need to be.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
When the Form Input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state. The workflow state is recorded, and execution continues downward after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the form information the user fills in and passes it to later nodes. It does not include a business database function of its own. The User Selection node executes a branch according to the user's choice. It does not serve as a staff directory or a business data selector. Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations require an external system or later nodes. Retrieval or form submission by itself does not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source text reads, "Store A submitted a peak-sale temporary staffing request of 12 people on June 1, 2026, for warehouse sorting during the June 18 campaign. The request was received by the regional warehouse manager on June 2, and its status is pending review." The draft sentence to be judged is, "Store A's temporary staffing request has been approved and can be scheduled to enter." The source text contains the subject Store A, the object temporary staffing request, the quantity 12 people, the date range June 1 to June 18, and the status pending review. Pending review does not mean approved. The draft sentence is not supported and the evidence gap must be recorded.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation check items relevant to this feature and the primary task, organized around the sample above. The values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, used only for comparison, and are not official default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Enabled, collecting store name, headcount requested, and start/end dates | The sample contains subject, quantity, and date fields; check whether a missing item blocks submission |
| Required-field check | Store name, headcount requested, and start/end dates set as required | The sample has all three; test the difference between submitting with one missing and submitting after it is supplied |
| User Selection node | Enabled, with branches "accept" and "return" | The sample status is pending review; check which branch path executes after the choice |
| Interactive state record | Records workflow state and waits for interaction after triggering | After the sample submission, the conversation enters the interactive state; check whether execution continues downward once interaction completes |
| Downstream processing split | Field validation, approval, and write-back handled by an external system or later nodes | The sample's pending-review status needs external approval; the form does not complete the approval action |
| Retrieval association check | Check the knowledge base identifier and the vector model identifier | The sample does not involve retrieval; only record that libraries with different vector models cannot be associated together |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review status as approved. The input is the sample source text "status is pending review." The comparison is the draft sentence "has been approved." The observable result is that the draft sentence does not match the status field in the source text, so it is judged unsupported.
- Treating the User Selection node as a staff directory or business data selector. The input is Store A's request in the sample. The comparison is the node's function description. The observable result is that the node only executes a branch according to the choice and does not provide staff data lookup.
- Treating form submission as authorized execution. The input is the submission action in the sample. The comparison is the authorization boundary. The observable result is that submission only collects information and passes it to later nodes, while approval and write-back require an external system.
How to verify the setup
- Missing-field test. The input is the sample source text with "12 people" removed. The comparison is the required-field setting. The observable result is that submission is blocked or a missing-field prompt appears; after the value is supplied, submission succeeds and passes to later nodes.
- Branch test. The input is the sample source text together with the user choice "return." The comparison is the branch setting. The observable result is that the "return" branch executes; when "accept" is chosen, the "accept" branch executes, and approval is not completed automatically.
- Status check test. The input is the sample source text and the draft sentence "has been approved." The comparison is the status field "pending review." The observable result is that the draft sentence is unsupported and the evidence gap is recorded; only if the source text were changed to "approved" with the same subject, the same period, and the same field could support be judged. The retrieval check only observes the returned and failure branches and does not guarantee a first-hit match or that an unrelated query returns empty.