What the documents look like
Fruit-store procurement in this category operates on four recurring documents: purchase orders, acceptance records, pesticide-residue test reports, and shrinkage logs. Wholesale-market price movement and grade-based acceptance decide purchase quality, store sales data reflects actual demand, and test reports carry the food-safety evidence. These materials refresh daily or per batch. Inquiry and price comparison, acceptance grading, and shrinkage control are the most time-consuming steps. In the store-service and internal-training setting, the form-input node collects the information a user fills in and passes it to later nodes; the user-selection node judges the user's choice and runs the corresponding branch. Both are interaction nodes: when triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. Neither node carries a business database. Field validation, approval, write-back, and batch operations need an external system or later nodes.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The form-input node collects information and hands it to later nodes. It does not perform approval or write to a database. The user-selection node judges a choice and runs the matching branch; it does not act as a staff directory or a business-data selector. The interaction state records workflow state and waits for the interaction, then continues after the interaction completes. The following is a hypothetical drill sample.
Hypothetical drill sample: a store's fresh-produce supervisor submits a purchase request. The source material reads: "Supplier A quoted Red Fuji apples at 3.2 yuan per jin on 10 March 2025; the quote is valid until 15 March 2025; attached pesticide-residue test report number JC-20250310, test date 9 March 2025, conclusion qualified." A draft sentence to be judged reads: "Supplier A's quote is valid, so the order can be placed directly." Judging whether the draft sentence is supported by the material requires comparing the quote validity date with the intended purchase date, and the test report date with the batch correspondence. This sample only checks the decision logic of form fields and interaction branches. It does not mean any actual purchase, approval, or order placement occurred.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists, for the sample above, officially described settings or implementation check items tied to forms and interaction. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial only, used to explain the comparison method. They are not official default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Form-input node fields | Supplier name, quoted unit price, quote validity date, test report number, test date, test conclusion | Check each item against the source material text and confirm the field value matches the text |
| Required information | Supplier name, quoted unit price, quote validity date | Test a submission with a missing item and one after completing it; observe whether the node continues downstream |
| User-selection node branches | Two branches, yes and no | After submitting a choice, observe whether the executed branch matches the choice |
| Interaction-state wait | After the node triggers, wait for the user to complete the interaction | Observe whether the conversation enters the interaction state and continues after submission |
| Downstream division of labor | Field validation, approval, and write-back are handled by an external system or later nodes | Confirm the form node does not carry approval or database-write actions |
| Quote-validity comparison | Intended purchase date 12 March 2025, quote valid until 15 March 2025 | Compare the date order and judge whether the draft sentence is supported |
Three common errors
- Treating the quoted unit price and quote validity date collected by the form-input node as a direct basis for placing an order. The input is the source material text, the comparison target is the draft sentence "the order can be placed directly," and the observable result is that the form node performed no approval or authorization action, so the draft sentence lacks an authorization basis.
- Treating the user-selection node's branch choice as a business approval result. The input is a choice of yes or no, the comparison target is approval status, and the observable result is that the node only executes a branch and produces no approval record.
- Mapping test report number JC-20250310 and test date 9 March 2025 directly onto the intended purchase batch. The input is the report number and date, the comparison target is the intended purchase batch identifier, and the observable result is that the sample does not state a batch correspondence, so that correspondence remains to be verified.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source material text and the draft sentence "Supplier A's quote is valid, so the order can be placed directly." Compare quote validity date 15 March 2025 with intended purchase date 12 March 2025, and observe whether the date order supports the draft sentence. The expected result is that the date falls within the validity period, yet the draft sentence still lacks an authorization basis and cannot be used to conclude that an order may be placed.
- Input two submissions, one with a required field missing and one with it completed. Compare whether the node continues downstream, and observe whether it stays in the interaction state when an item is missing and continues after completion. The expected result is that a missing item does not continue and a completed item does continue; the specific behavior depends on actual observation.
- Input a user selection of yes and of no. Compare the executed branch with the choice, and observe the branch execution result. The expected result is that the branch corresponds to the choice, and the node produces no approval record. All of the above are paper checks; no deployment or execution took place.