What the documents look like
Store counts and loss control revolve around book-to-physical variance and shrinkage. The working materials are count sheets, variance analyses, loss write-off approvals, and surveillance review records. Supplier payables sit outside this category, so reconciliation of vendor accounts does not belong here. The stated data sources are POS inventory, WMS, surveillance systems, and the SB/T count specification. Material appears on a monthly or quarterly rhythm: count sheets and variance analyses cluster after a closed-store count, while write-off approvals and surveillance review records accumulate as verification proceeds.
For store service and internal training, these materials must be handed over, rechecked, and retained. Workflow routing connects the collection, transfer, and judgment steps, and each step needs a clear authorization boundary. A store loss-prevention team, store inventory keeper, and finance auditor are the typical roles involved. Errors in this chain produce distorted inventory, overstated gross margin, and staff fraud.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Materials arrive in monthly or quarterly batches, and one count can touch many SKUs and several store roles. The form input node enters an interaction state when triggered, records the workflow state, and continues after the user finishes the interaction. The user selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding branch. Collected values must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes.
Retrieval only locates related content. It does not constitute authorization. A form collects values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization require a separate business interface or downstream process. Interaction waiting, state recording, and hiding the dialog are documented node behaviors. There is no separate global state switch.
Hypothetical paper exercise: during a count period, a supermarket loss-prevention department receives a store handover request. The source text reads: "After this quarter's count ends, store inventory keeper Zhang hands the variance analysis table and the loss write-off approval table to the loss-prevention department for recheck; the surveillance review record is pending." A draft sentence awaits judgment: "The above materials have completed approval and been synchronized to WMS." The source material contains only the handover action and the pending note. It records no approval result and no synchronization. Judgment must compare the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The parts not stated remain unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enters interaction state when triggered, collects required information, passes it to later nodes after submission | Collects the handing-over person, count period, and material list |
| User selection node | Executes the corresponding branch after the user makes a choice; verify each branch connection | Separates the recheck-passed path from the return-for-supplement path |
| Output handoff | Passes collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes | Checks whether handover values reach the variance analysis retrieval |
| External operation split | Approval writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface | The draft sentence's approval and synchronization are not performed by this node |
| Retrieval scope check | The same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library is limited to that library's identifier and does not extend to external systems | Variance analysis retrieval is checked separately from external business-registration systems |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | This paper exercise sets three required fields: handing-over person, period, and materials. The reason is that they cover the fields needed for the sample judgment. They are compared field by field with the draft sentence. | Tests whether the submitted output contains these three fields |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as completed approval. A variance analysis retrieval returning a related passage shows only that the content is related. It does not show that the loss write-off approval passed. Compare the draft sentence "has completed approval" with the source "hands to the loss-prevention department for recheck." The source states no approval result, so that wording is unsupported.
- Treating form submission as external synchronization. The form input node collects and passes information. It does not write to WMS. The draft sentence "synchronized to WMS" requires a separate business interface. The source contains no synchronization record, so that part remains unknown.
- Treating a pending material as a negative finding. The source says "the surveillance review record is pending," which is a to-be-verified state. It cannot be judged as not reviewed or as a conflict. Compare the same period and the same material field, and record only the evidence gap.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text and the draft sentence above. Compare "has completed approval" in the draft with "hands to the loss-prevention department for recheck" in the source. The source states only the handover action and no approval result. The condition is met if the conclusion is unsupported and the approval status gap is retained.
- Input the same draft sentence. Compare "synchronized to WMS" with the source material list. The source lists no synchronization record and does not describe an interface call. The condition is met if the conclusion is that a separate business interface is required and there is currently no synchronization evidence.
- Input the source phrase "the surveillance review record is pending." Compare that field with the other materials from the same period. The field is in a pending state and does not constitute a negative finding or a conflict. The condition is met if the conclusion is to be verified and the gap is recorded.