What the documents look like
Fresh-food supplier claims pursue quality responsibility at goods receipt and do not address ordinary in-store shrink. The working materials come from the quality inspection system, WMS receiving records, supplier contracts and financial reconciliation. The documents handled day to day are quality exception forms, photo evidence, deduction notices and claim reconciliation statements. Store service and internal training must place these materials in front of store staff for completion or selection, so form fields need a one-to-one correspondence with claim evidence.
The distinguishing feature against near-expiry markdown handling is the object of responsibility: a supplier claim targets arrival quality, while markdown handling does not. This affects the interactive forms step because the fields collected must identify a specific delivery, a specific supplier and a specific quality state rather than a general shelf decision. Data updates per batch and per month; batch synchronization and real-time mechanisms fall outside this page.
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 fills required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form values and passes them to later nodes. The node does not include a business database function.
The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. On trigger, the conversation enters the interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a selection, the node evaluates that selection and executes the corresponding branch. The node is not a personnel directory and not a business data selector.
Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations require implementation in an external system or in later nodes. Retrieval and form submission do not grant authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The material text to be checked reads: "On 12 March 2025, Store A received one batch of spinach from Supplier B. The receiving record notes wilted leaves. The quality inspection system generated quality exception form number Q-0312, status pending quality inspection confirmation. Two photos accompany the form." The handover request to be assessed reads: "Please have the store initiate a deduction notice from this exception form and complete the claim reconciliation." This request lacks the deduction amount, the contract deduction clause and the authorized signature record, so it cannot be treated as authorized for execution.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists only settings documented in the official material for this page, or implementation checks named for this page. The values are hypothetical starting points for this paper exercise, used to compare against manual review results. They are not default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Enabled, required fields set | Required fields align with quality exception form number, batch and photo count; when a field is missing, observe whether the conversation remains in the interaction state |
| User Selection node | Enabled, two branches set | Branches correspond to "evidence complete" and "evidence pending"; compare the selection result with the manual review conclusion |
| Interaction state | Waits for submission after trigger | Check whether the dialogue box is hidden, whether state is recorded, and whether execution continues after interaction completes |
| Field validation location | External system or later node | Check whether submitted form values are received by later nodes; the node itself does not perform validation |
| Deduction notice generation | Requires separate system implementation | Check whether an independent approval and signature record exists; collected form values do not constitute execution |
| Claim reconciliation write-back | Requires separate system implementation | Check whether reconciliation results are written by an external system; retrieval and forms do not grant permission |
Three common errors
- Treating a Form Input submission as a generated deduction notice. The input is a field value filled by store staff; the comparison object is the external system approval and signature record. Only the appearance of the latter satisfies the execution condition.
- Treating the "evidence complete" branch of User Selection as a confirmed quality inspection conclusion. The input is a user click result; the comparison object is the status field in the quality inspection system. When the two disagree, the quality inspection system record governs.
- Treating retrieval or form completion as authorization. The input is a query term or field value; the comparison object is the authorization boundary record. When the authorization record is absent, only the gap can be recorded, and deduction or reconciliation cannot proceed.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one. Input the hypothetical sample text above together with the handover request. Compare whether the subject, object, status and material in the request share the same subject, the same period and the same field as the material text. When the request lacks the deduction amount and the authorization record, the expected result is pending verification, and the execution condition is not met.
- Verification two. Input quality exception form number Q-0312 and the status "pending quality inspection confirmation". Compare the quality inspection system status field with the User Selection branch. When the status remains pending confirmation while the branch selected is "evidence complete", the expected result is that the branch and the system status disagree, and manual review is required.
- Verification three. Input an empty result [] to check the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream node still waits for manual input when no retrieval result is present. When the form has not been submitted, the expected result is that the interaction state is maintained and no deduction notice or reconciliation write-back is produced. All of the above are paper expectations and were not actually executed.