What the documents look like
FBA preparation moves inventory into platform warehouses, so inbound differences and inventory age carry the main risk. The working materials for this category are the FBA inbound plan, carton labels, inventory reports, and compensation claims. Data comes from Amazon Seller Central, FBA inventory reports, freight forwarder tracking, and ERP purchase orders. An operating review needs freight tracking, inventory reports, and compensation claims in one view so a shipment's inbound quantity, difference status, and claim progress can be compared. Update frequency is daily and weekly, and report scope must match the period stated in each material.
Two interaction nodes from the workflow documentation shape how this review is routed. The form input node enters an interaction state when triggered, records the workflow state, collects required fields, and passes the submitted values to later nodes. The user selection node also enters an interaction state, records the workflow state, and after the user makes a choice executes the corresponding "yes" branch. These two documented behaviors define the routing step. They do not create a separate global state-recording switch, and they do not authorize any downstream business action.
A paper exercise sample is used below. It is hypothetical and does not describe a real customer, real shipment, or completed action.
Sample material text: an FBA inbound plan reads "Inbound plan number PLAN-2024-031, destination warehouse FBA US West, planned inbound date 18 March 2024, declared quantity 600 units, freight forwarder tracking shows arrival at warehouse on 20 March 2024." An inventory report reads "For this plan number, arrived quantity 540 units, difference 60 units, difference status pending verification."
Draft sentence to be judged: "The 60-unit difference for this shipment is confirmed, and the compensation claim has been submitted and approved."
Review conclusion: the source text states only the arrived quantity and the difference status. It contains no record of a compensation claim submission or approval. The phrases "confirmed," "submitted," and "approved" in the draft sentence are not supported by the source.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node collects required fields and passes them to later nodes after submission. The user selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the "yes" branch. Interaction state and state recording are behaviors of these interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is documented. Collected values must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorized execution. Submitting a compensation claim, approving it, and receiving payment are downstream actions.
For the sample, the form input node would collect the inbound plan number, destination warehouse, planned inbound date, and declared quantity. The user selection node would route the difference status "pending verification" to a manual review branch. The judgment task is to compare a draft sentence against the source materials and mark unsupported statements as unsupported, not as contradicted. A pending request is not an approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.
Retrieval is not authorization. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Knowledge-reference limits use the documented unit. Same-model retrieval association, empty-reference output, and context limits retain their documented conditions. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; verify the model identifier first and exclude non-matching libraries, then record the actual observation.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Comparison method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node required fields | Inbound plan number, destination warehouse, planned inbound date, declared quantity | Set the four fields from the sample text and compare each submitted value against the output |
| User selection node branch | Difference status "pending verification" routes to manual review | After the choice, confirm the executed branch matches the configured branch |
| Interaction state check | Trigger enters interaction state and records state | Observe dialog hiding and restoration; no separate global switch is assumed |
| Output handoff | Collected form values pass to a later judgment node | Compare each passed value against the value entered in the form |
| External action boundary | Claim submission and approval marked as downstream interface | This page records request status only; it performs no write or synchronization |
| Retrieval scope check | Target library and vector model identifier | Verify the identifier first and exclude non-matching libraries |
These starting points are chosen for this exercise because they follow the sample text and the documented node behavior. They are not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating a collected difference quantity as evidence that a compensation claim was submitted. The sample source states arrived quantity 540 units and difference status pending verification, with no claim action recorded. Check: input the sample source text, compare whether a claim submission record exists, and observe that the draft claim is unsupported.
- Treating execution of the user selection "yes" branch as completed approval. The node only evaluates the choice and executes a branch; approval is a downstream business action. Check: input the selection record, compare whether a signed approval record exists, and observe that the status remains pending verification.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorized execution. A relevance score does not perform permission or entity filtering. Check: input the retrieval result, compare the target library identifier and access scope, and record whether non-matching items were excluded and what was actually observed.
How to verify the setup
- Compare the draft sentence against the sample source text. Input the plan number PLAN-2024-031, arrived quantity 540 units, difference 60 units, and status pending verification, together with the draft sentence claiming confirmation and approval. Compare the claim submission and approval fields. The expected observation is that the draft is unsupported, and the evidence gap is retained.
- Check downstream handoff with a paper input of an empty result. Input the explicit paper value [] and compare whether the later node handles the empty-value branch. Observe whether undefined behavior appears. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
- Check branch execution with the selection record. Input the user choice "pending verification" and compare the executed branch against the configured branch. Observe whether the manual review branch is entered. This is an expected behavior statement, not a claim that a test was run.
This page addresses one scope: Amazon FBA preparation / operating reports and exception review / workflow routing. It defines which materials, operations, and requests sit at which authorization state during an operations handover. Retrieval and form collection are not authorization to execute.