What the documents look like
Site selection and store opening happen before a store begins trading, so the work centres on lease and construction delivery materials rather than on trading operations. The documents handled day to day are the site evaluation form, the letter of intent for lease, the renovation budget, and the opening schedule. These materials move between head-office expansion staff, regional development staff, and engineering managers. Errors at this stage can produce an unprofitable opening, delayed handover, or a lost deposit. Material updates are irregular and per store; this page does not derive any batch or real-time mechanism from that frequency.
In the store service and internal training task, workflow routing covers the collection, branching, and handover of these documents. The form input node is a user interaction node: when it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the interaction the workflow continues. It collects required information and, once the user submits, passes the collected form information to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user interaction node with the same interaction-state behaviour; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and can trigger execution.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Site selection materials are handled per store, move through distinct stages, and carry authorisation states that must be confirmed item by item. A workflow can collect and pass node outputs. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronisation require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorisation to execute.
Hypothetical paper exercise: an expansion staff member at a chain head office submits a letter of intent for lease stating "the lessor is A Real Estate Company, the lessee is B Chain Brand, the intent deposit is RMB 50,000, the signing date is 10 March 2025, and the validity period runs to 9 April 2025." In the same batch there is a draft opening schedule marked "renovation milestone pending confirmation by the engineering manager." The sentence to be assessed is: "This letter of intent has taken effect, the renovation milestone is confirmed, and the opening schedule can proceed." This exercise is for paper comparison only and does not represent any real business.
The constraints follow from the material. The form input node can collect fields such as the letter of intent number, the intent deposit amount, and the signing date, and pass them onward. The user selection node can branch on "whether signed." The letter states a signing date and does not state any effectiveness clause; the opening schedule draft is marked pending confirmation, which is an unsupported state. Workflow routing must preserve these evidence gaps. A signing date is not contract effectiveness, and a pending item is not a confirmed item.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below uses the hypothetical exercise above and lists settings or implementation checks that the official documentation describes. Where a value appears, it is a starting point for this hypothetical exercise, with the comparison object stated.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node fields | Letter of intent number, intent deposit amount, signing date, validity period | After submission, compare each field value against what the downstream node receives |
| User selection node branch | Branch set on "whether signed" | Verify the "yes" branch connection one by one and confirm the corresponding branch runs after the choice |
| Interaction state check | Workflow state recorded when the node triggers | Observe whether the conversation enters the interaction state and waits for the user to complete the interaction |
| Output handover check | Collected information passed to a later decision node | Compare the downstream node input with the form output |
| External action split | Contract effectiveness, schedule confirmation, deposit handling | Check whether these actions are carried by a separate business interface or a later process |
| Retrieval scope check | Target retrieval scope contains the letter of intent and the schedule draft | Confirm the materials sit within a scope the user may access; record the gap when they are missing |
Three common errors
- Treating the signing date collected by the form as contract effectiveness. The input is the hypothetical signing date of 10 March 2025; the comparison object is the fact of contract effectiveness; the exercise states no effectiveness clause, so the assessment is unsupported. Executable check: compare the letter of intent text field by field, confirm whether an effectiveness clause exists, and record the gap when it is absent.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as business approval. The input is the branch choice on "whether signed"; the comparison object is the fact of completed approval; the exercise provides no approval record, so branch execution and approval are different facts. Executable check: inspect the branch connection and confirm the choice only drives the flow path, while approval needs a separate business interface.
- Treating "pending confirmation" on the schedule draft as confirmed. The input is "renovation milestone pending confirmation by the engineering manager"; the comparison object is "renovation milestone confirmed"; these are mutually exclusive values of the same field, so the draft state is unsupported. Executable check: compare the draft text with the sentence to be assessed and confirm that "pending confirmation" and "confirmed" cannot both hold.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: for the hypothetical sentence "this letter of intent has taken effect," the input is the letter text stating a signing date of 10 March 2025 and a validity period to 9 April 2025; the comparison object is the fact of contract effectiveness; the text states no effectiveness clause, so the assessment is unsupported. The condition is satisfied when the gap is recorded.
- Verification two: for the hypothetical text "renovation milestone pending confirmation by the engineering manager," the input is the schedule draft text; the comparison object is "renovation milestone confirmed"; the two are mutually exclusive values of the same field, so the "confirmed" wording in the sentence to be assessed is unsupported. The condition is satisfied when the pending state is retained.
- Verification three: for the output handover of the form input node, the input is the hypothetical intent deposit amount of RMB 50,000; the comparison object is the value received by the downstream node; the condition is satisfied only when the two match. Compare item by item and record any difference.
All three verifications are paper comparisons and no live test is claimed. Retrieval checks record observations and failure branches only; they do not guarantee a first-hit result or full recall. An empty-result handover can be checked on paper with an explicit input of [] against the downstream design. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; confirm the identifiers first, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual observation.