What the documents look like
Price and display auditing in a chain store group takes place during ordinary trading periods. The central question is whether standards continue to be applied, not whether a new store has opened correctly. Supervisory systems, POS price tables, store camera records and head-office promotion calendars together form the material against which a visit is checked. The documents handled day to day are store visit photographs, price tag lists, display standards and rectification notices. In store service and internal training work, a regional supervisor or store manager collects visit information through a form and then uses what was submitted to drive later actions.
The supplied brief gives weekly and monthly update frequencies. This page does not derive batch synchronisation, real-time triggers or transaction-based triggers from those frequencies. The form input node is a user interaction node. When it is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits until the user completes the interaction. After the user submits, the node collects the entered form information and passes it to later nodes. This node does not include a business database function. Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations require separate implementation in an external system or in later nodes.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The objects being checked in price and display auditing are price tags, display arrangements and promotion execution status. A form therefore needs to collect a store identifier, a check date, price tag list entries and photograph descriptions. The user selection node executes a branch according to the user's choice. It does not act as a staff directory or a business data selector.
Hypothetical paper test case. A store visit handover record reads: "Store number A-017, check date 12 March 2025, price tag list item 4 shows promotion price 9.9 yuan, display standard requires the second shelf of the end display. Rectification notice draft status is pending store manager confirmation." The draft sentence to be assessed reads: "Store A-017 promotion price execution on 12 March is confirmed complete, and the rectification notice is in effect." The subject of that draft sentence is store A-017, the objects are promotion price execution and the rectification notice, and the stated statuses are confirmed complete and in effect. The source record does not state that promotion price execution was completed, and does not state that the rectification notice took effect. The draft sentence and the source record take mutually exclusive values on the rectification notice field: the source says pending store manager confirmation, the draft says in effect. Mutually exclusive values on the same subject, the same period and the same field constitute a contradiction.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enabled, collecting store number, check date and price tag entries | The documentation states this node triggers the interaction state and collects entered information |
| Required fields | Store number, check date | With a missing item the interaction does not submit; after completion it continues |
| User selection node | Enabled, with branches for "pass" and "return" | The documentation states the node executes the corresponding branch according to the choice |
| Interaction state recording | Documented behaviour | The documentation states the node records workflow state and waits for interaction after being triggered |
| Downstream handling | External system or later nodes | The documentation states the node does not include a business database function |
| Knowledge base identifier check | Check the vector model identifier | The documentation states that bases using different vector models cannot be associated together |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending review status as already in effect. In the sample, the rectification notice draft status is pending store manager confirmation, while the draft sentence writes it as in effect. This is a mutually exclusive value on the same field. The check input is the source record and the draft sentence; the comparison is the value of the rectification notice field; the observable result is that the two values differ.
- Treating form submission as completed business approval. In the sample, the form collects store number and check date, and after submission passes them to later nodes. The documentation does not state that submission completes approval. The check input is the form submission record and the approval status field; the comparison is between the two; the observable result is that the approval status remains empty or pending.
- Treating a retrieval result as an authorisation basis. In the sample, a price tag list record is retrieved. The documentation does not state that retrieval carries permission filtering. The check input is the retrieved record and the authorisation scope field; the comparison is between the two; the observable result is that the authorisation field does not appear in the retrieval result.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the hypothetical source record and the draft sentence, and compare the value of the rectification notice field. The source says pending store manager confirmation and the draft says in effect. The expected observation is that the two differ, and the draft sentence is judged unsupported.
- Enter the hypothetical form fields and submit with the store number missing. Compare the submission behaviour. The expected observation is that the interaction does not submit. After the store number and check date are completed and submitted, the expected observation is that the information is passed to later nodes.
- Enter the hypothetical retrieval request and compare the returned records against the vector model identifier. The expected observation is that bases with the same identifier return records, and bases using different vector models cannot be associated together. When the result is empty, use the explicit paper input [] to check the downstream design, and do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
This page addresses one combination only: chain store price and display auditing, store service and internal training, interactive forms. During an operational handover, the authorisation status of materials, actions and requests must be established separately. A retrieval result and a form submission are not an authorisation to execute.