What the documents look like
On-demand retail store fulfillment processes online orders on a minute-level cadence rather than a periodic stock count. The data sources named in the brief are Douyin on-demand retail, the Meituan or JD Daojia backend, store inventory, and rider trajectories. The daily documents are instant orders, picking lists, out-of-stock reports, and delivery exception tickets, with updates per order and at minute-level frequency. For operating reports and exception reviews, these documents supply the fields that get consolidated into checkable records.
Workflow routing sits between the documents and the review. Interaction nodes collect human input such as the out-of-stock reason or the exception type, then pass that input to later nodes. Retrieval or form collection on its own does not authorize execution. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. The review task therefore depends on clean field-level comparison, not on treating any single node as a complete business action.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the interaction the workflow continues. Once the user fills the 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 with the same interaction-state behavior; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. The interaction state is recorded by the interaction node itself. No separate global state-recording switch is documented.
Because updates arrive per order at minute-level frequency, a review sample must be locked to a single order or a single-day scope. Per-order comparison cannot be replaced by batch or full synchronization. Collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs must be compared item by item against inputs.
Hypothetical drill sample. Source text one: "On 12 March 2025 at 14:20, a picker at Store A submitted an out-of-stock report; the out-of-stock item was a 950 ml milk of a certain brand; the substitution field was empty." Source text two: "On the same day at 14:35, a delivery exception ticket recorded the order's delivery status as timed out, with the exception reason field reading 'store out of stock, pending confirmation'." Proposed judgment sentence: "This order has completed a refund, and the out-of-stock report has been approved." Comparison scope: same order number, same date, out-of-stock report fields and delivery exception ticket fields. Authorization boundary: the two source texts are used only for report checking and do not indicate that a refund or an approval has been executed.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to this page's documents |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Enters interaction state on trigger; collects required information such as out-of-stock reason and substitution | Carries the human input for the out-of-stock report |
| User Selection node | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice | Used for branch judgment on exception type |
| Interaction state check | The interaction node records state; no separate global state switch is documented | Confirms during review whether the interaction completed |
| Output handoff check | Explicitly passes collected information to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes | Compares input against downstream output |
| External action separation | Order writes, document backfill, and external status sync attach to a separate business interface | Refund and approval are not executed by these nodes |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | This drill uses a single order as the comparison unit, compared against records with the same order number | Limits the review scope; not an official default |
Three common errors
- Treating a form submission as a completed approval. Input is the out-of-stock report submission record; the comparison object is the approval status field. If the approval field is empty or contains only a submission timestamp, the result can only be recorded as pending verification.
- Treating a retrieval result as an authorization basis. Input is the order record returned by retrieval; the comparison object is the refund execution record. If no refund number or refund status field is present, a refund cannot be determined to have occurred.
- Treating different fields as a contradiction. Input is the empty substitution field in the out-of-stock report and the reason field in the delivery exception ticket; the comparison object would be mutually exclusive values in the same field. The two fields differ, so the result can only be recorded as unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Using the hypothetical source text one and the proposed judgment sentence, input the out-of-stock report fields and compare whether the approval status field exists. If the approval field is empty, the judgment sentence does not hold and is recorded as pending verification.
- Using the hypothetical source text two, input the delivery exception ticket and compare the order number and refund status in the refund execution record. If no refund number is present, the refund fact is unsupported.
- Using the same order number and same date in the hypothetical sample, input the Form Input node output and compare the fields received by the downstream node. If the downstream node does not receive the out-of-stock reason, the output handoff is incomplete and the actual observation is recorded.