What the documents look like
Chain-headquarters site selection and store opening happens before a store begins trading. The work centres on lease negotiation and engineering handover, which places it in a different stage from post-opening store supervision. The documents handled day to day include site evaluation forms, letters of intent for leases, fit-out budgets and opening schedules. Data sources include trade-area footfall, map POIs, POS history by store type and landlord materials. These materials are updated irregularly, once per store.
For the interactive forms step, that shape matters in three ways. First, the materials carry four kinds of information: subject, object, status and validity scope. A form has to split these into fields that can be checked one by one. Second, the Form Input node collects the information a user fills in and passes it to later nodes after submission, and it does not carry a business database of its own. Field validation, business approval, write-back and bulk operations therefore need to sit in an external system or in later nodes. Third, the User Selection node executes a branch according to the user's choice; it is not a staff directory or a business-data selector. When either node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, records the workflow state and waits for the interaction to finish before continuing. The documents do not state a submission-count limit, automatic judgement or snapshot guarantee, so those remain unknown. Retrieval and similarity scores do not carry permission or entity-isolation duties, and retrieval results are not an authorization credential.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The site-selection materials require the form to separate subject, object, status and validity scope into checkable fields. The Form Input node itself has no business-database function. Validation, approval, write-back and batch operations are implemented as needed in external systems or later nodes. The User Selection node only executes a branch based on the choice made. The interactive state only means that the node was triggered, the workflow state was recorded and the flow is waiting for the interaction to complete.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a chain-headquarters expansion staff member fills in a paper site evaluation form. The source text reads: "Proposed leased object: ground-floor shop, No. 12 Road B, District A; lessor: C Real Estate; intended lease term: three years; quoted monthly rent: RMB 40,000; quote valid until 30 June 2025; current status: the lessor has provided a draft letter of intent, headquarters has not signed." The draft sentence to be judged is: "C Real Estate has reached cooperation with headquarters, and the lease contract has taken effect." Comparing the draft sentence with the source: the source shows only that the lessor provided a draft letter of intent and that headquarters has not signed; it does not state that the contract has taken effect. The subject and object in the draft match the source, but the status field goes beyond the source and is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below centres on the Form Input and User Selection nodes for this page's sample. The table lists settings already described in the official documents, or implementation checks. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, used for comparison only, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Required fields in the Form Input node | Proposed leased object, lessor, intended lease term, quoted monthly rent, quote validity | The sample judgement needs subject, object, status and validity scope; when a field is missing, observe whether the interaction keeps waiting |
| Branches in the User Selection node | Yes branch: "materials complete, may be submitted for review"; No branch: "materials pending" | The documents state that a branch is executed according to the choice; compare the choice with the downstream node path |
| Interactive state handling | After triggering, record the workflow state and wait for the interaction to complete | The documents state that the flow continues after the interaction completes; observe whether the interactive state is entered while waiting |
| Field validation responsibility | Implemented by later nodes or an external system | The Form Input node does not carry a business database; compare where validation results appear |
| Write-back responsibility | Implemented by later nodes or an external system | The documents do not state automatic write-back by the node; compare which system performs the write-back action |
| Retrieval association check | Check whether the vector model identifier matches | Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; compare identifiers and exclude non-matching ones |
Three common errors
- Treating the User Selection node as a staff directory or business-data selector. The documents state that the node executes a branch according to the user's choice and do not state that it carries staff or business data. Check whether staff lists or business-record fields appear in the node configuration; if they do, that does not match the documented description.
- Reading the interactive state as a submission-count limit or automatic judgement. The documents state only that the node records the workflow state and waits for the interaction to complete after triggering. Check whether a count limit or automatic judgement condition appears in the configuration; if it does, it lacks documentary support.
- Treating retrieval results or similarity scores as a basis for authorization or entity isolation. Retrieval does not carry permission judgement, and a similarity score is not a category or permission filter. Check whether the flow uses retrieval results to directly release approval or write-back; if it does, that does not match the documented description.
How to verify the setup
- Input the paper source text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the status field "contract has taken effect" in the draft sentence with the source wording "headquarters has not signed, the lessor has provided a draft letter of intent". If the flow marks the draft sentence as pending verification or unsupported, the condition is met; if it marks it as effective, the condition is not met.
- Input the two fields "quote valid until 30 June 2025" and "intended lease term three years" from the sample. Compare whether the Form Input node collects them as separate fields and does not merge them into one. If the two fields appear separately and are passed to later nodes after submission, the condition is met; if they are merged or lost, the condition is not met.
- Input a request that contains no image input and has no rerank model enabled. Compare whether the flow skips the image retrieval and rerank paths. If the flow executes only the paths in the overall document flow diagram that match the current input, the condition is met; if it forces image retrieval or rerank, the condition is not met. The retrieval check records only actual observations and does not guarantee a first hit or full recall.