What the documents look like
Convenience-store fresh food is ordered by the store at high frequency against short shelf life. The order form, the loss report, the near-expiry handling sheet and the temperature record together form the raw material for operating reports and exception review. POS sales, the headquarters ordering system, store inventory and cold-chain temperature records are the main data sources, updating by day or by shift. Store managers, fresh-food buyers and regional supervisors are the typical roles involved.
For this page the concern is narrower than the whole category. Workflow routing at the operating-review step collects these materials in a fixed sequence, passes them between nodes and waits for human confirmation. It does not forecast next-day sales and it does not grant approval. The materials still move between people: the store manager submits the day's order and loss data, the regional supervisor checks the near-expiry handling sheet and temperature exceptions, and the fresh-food buyer consolidates. An interaction node records workflow state and resumes after the user acts; it does not perform the business write that follows.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it fires, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the required fields and submits, the collected information is passed to later nodes. The User Selection node behaves the same way at the state level: the conversation enters an interaction state, and when the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and both trigger execution.
These documented behaviours set the boundary for this page. Routing can split "submit loss report", "confirm near-expiry handling sheet" and "check temperature record" into separate interaction nodes. Routing cannot treat a retrieval result or a form submission as authorized execution. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. The interaction node collects and passes; it does not approve.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample is given here for checking only. Store A's manager submits a loss report on the 2025-03-10 shift. The source text reads: "Fresh-food loss report: Store A, date 2025-03-10, loss item rice ball 2 units, reason expired, submitted by manager A." A near-expiry handling sheet reads: "Near-expiry handling sheet: Store A, date 2025-03-10, rice ball 1 unit, handling method discount sale, status pending supervisor confirmation." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "Store A's rice ball loss of 2 units and near-expiry discount of 1 unit on that day have both been completed." The draft converts "pending supervisor confirmation" into "completed", which does not match the source status.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below ties documented node behaviour and named implementation checks to this sample. It does not list database internals, and it does not claim any value is an official default.
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Required fields for the loss report: store, date, item, quantity, reason, submitter | Collects the manager's loss information from the sample |
| User Selection node | "Yes" branch used for supervisor confirmation of the near-expiry handling sheet | Corresponds to the "pending supervisor confirmation" follow-up branch |
| Interaction state check | State is recorded on trigger; workflow waits for user submission | The two sample materials each trigger one interaction |
| Output hand-off check | Collected form information is explicitly passed to later decision nodes | Compares loss quantity against near-expiry quantity |
| External action separation | Order writing and document backfill connect to a separate business interface | "Completed" in the sample requires an external process |
| Hypothetical exercise starting point | This exercise starts from loss 2 units and near-expiry 1 unit, compared word by word against the loss report source | Paper check only; not an official default value |
Three common errors
- Treating a form submission as authorized execution. In the sample the manager's submission only completes information collection. The draft sentence "have both been completed" omits the supervisor confirmation step.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the User Selection node as automatic completion. The near-expiry handling sheet status is "pending supervisor confirmation". The branch decides the flow direction; it does not produce a handling result.
- Treating a retrieval result as a permission or entity filter. If retrieval returns Store A's loss report, that does not establish that Store A's near-expiry handling has been authorized. The specific status field still has to be checked.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample loss report source and the draft sentence "Store A's rice ball loss of 2 units and near-expiry discount of 1 unit on that day have both been completed." Compare the status description in the draft against the near-expiry handling sheet source "pending supervisor confirmation". If the draft says "completed" while the source says "pending supervisor confirmation", the draft sentence is not supported.
- Input the sample near-expiry handling sheet source. Compare "pending supervisor confirmation" against the result of executing the User Selection node's "yes" branch. If no supervisor confirmation record exists after the branch runs, the request remains pending verification and cannot be treated as completed.
- Input both sample materials. Compare the loss report date 2025-03-10 against the near-expiry handling sheet date 2025-03-10. If the two materials share the same subject, date and item but differ in the status field, a status difference exists. Preserve the evidence gap and record the actual observation.
These checks are paper comparisons. No test, deployment, approval or synchronization is claimed to have occurred. Where a field is not documented, it remains unknown. A pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not execution.