What the documents look like
Regional dealer stock replenishment runs on daily rolling orders. This differs from seasonal centralized ordering events, where demand concentrates into a fixed window. The working materials are replenishment requests, inventory turnover tables, outbound delivery notes and payment collection plans, updated weekly or monthly. Brand channel managers and sales back-office staff use these materials to judge replenishment rhythm, coordinate brand shipment and follow up on receivables. Data comes from dealer ERP systems, brand ordering systems, warehouse inventory and sales receipts. The subject, period and field definitions across these materials may not align.
This page covers only workflow routing inside operating reports and exception reviews for this category. It does not treat retrieval results or form submissions as authorized execution.
A replenishment request may carry an applicant, a requested item, a review status and a validity scope. An inventory turnover table may carry a period and a stock figure. An outbound delivery note may carry a shipment quantity. A payment collection plan may carry a due amount. None of these materials, on its own, authorizes an order write, a document backfill or an external status synchronization.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user fills required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a selection, the node evaluates that selection and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and are trigger-executed.
For routing, each branch connection needs item-by-item verification, and collected information needs to be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment or interface nodes. Order writes, document backfills and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later flow. The interaction nodes themselves do not complete those business actions.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample, used only for desk verification and not pointing to any real customer or real document:
Material text A: "Applicant: East China regional dealer; Requested object: Model A stock replenishment; Request status is Pending brand channel manager review; Validity scope: March 2025 replenishment batch."
Draft handoff request B: "Write this replenishment request directly into the brand ordering system and synchronize the outbound delivery note."
The sample is complete enough to check subject, object, status and validity scope. It carries no approval conclusion. It carries no interface authorization.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Purpose on this page | Verification method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect applicant, requested object and validity scope from the replenishment request | After submission, compare passed fields against the request text |
| User Selection node | Set a "yes" branch for the review conclusion | Verify branch connections and selection outcome one by one |
| Interaction state check | Confirm the interaction state is entered and recorded after triggering | Observe the documented interaction behavior and state recording |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information to later retrieval or judgment nodes | Compare each output field against its input field |
| External action separation | Order writes, document backfills and external synchronization require a separate interface | Confirm that business actions remain unexecuted when no interface exists |
For this hypothetical exercise, the starting comparison value is "March 2025 replenishment batch" as the validity scope. This value is chosen because the sample text states it. The comparison object is the validity scope field actually received by a later node. This value is a paper exercise starting point, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a form submission as a passed review. In the sample, the request status is "Pending brand channel manager review." Submission completes information collection only. A review conclusion must come from a later node or manual verification. When review evidence is missing, the status remains pending verification.
- Treating the "yes" branch of a user selection as a completed business write. Branch execution shows flow direction only. Order writes and outbound delivery note synchronization require a separate business interface. When no interface is connected, those actions remain unexecuted.
- Treating a retrieval result as a permission or entity isolation basis. A relevance score does not perform authorization filtering. A retrieval hit does not mean the dealer is permitted to view or operate the corresponding record.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample text and the draft handoff request. Compare the applicant, requested object and validity scope passed out of the Form Input node against the original text. If a field is missing or does not match the original, record it as incomplete passing.
- Input the "Pending brand channel manager review" status from the sample. Compare whether the User Selection node branch keeps the case pending verification when no review conclusion exists. If the flow enters the write branch directly, record it as a branch condition that does not cover the pending review status.
- Input an explicit paper empty result []. Compare whether the downstream node handles the empty input as designed. If the downstream node treats the empty result as an authorized record and continues processing, record it as a handoff design gap. The retrieval check records only actual observations. It does not guarantee a first hit or that an unrelated query returns empty.
Across these checks, keep the same subject, the same period and the same field. A contradiction requires mutually exclusive values in the same field. A status that is not stated, or evidence that covers only a related stage, remains unsupported or pending verification. A pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period. Do not supply authorization or effectiveness clauses to force a definite answer. Keep the evidence gap open.