What the documents look like
Brand-owned stores are staffed and accounted for directly by the brand, so they are not managed through franchise contracts. The working materials for operating reports and exception reviews are the daily sales report, the shift schedule, display photos, and the inventory transfer order. These come from the POS system, the member CRM, ERP inventory, and store inspections, with daily or weekly updates. Store managers and regional managers carry direct responsibility for the sales targets, inventory status, and performance results of the same set of stores. Missed sales targets, broken size runs, and store performance penalties are the direct consequences of getting this wrong.
Workflow routing has to fix the collection, comparison, and handoff relationships among the fields in these materials, so that each judgment in an operating report or exception review traces back to a specific input document. The form input node and the user selection node are the two interaction points that shape this step. Each is a user interaction node: when triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the interaction, execution continues downstream. The form input node collects the required information the user fills in and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Neither node carries business authorization, database writes, or external synchronization on its own. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval results do not constitute a permission decision, and a similarity score does not perform entity isolation.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The routing step sits between the document inputs and any downstream judgment. The form input node gathers values; it does not verify them against the POS system or ERP inventory. The user selection node routes the flow; it does not approve a transfer, close a performance penalty, or confirm a sales target. A pending request is not an approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. When a field is not present in the source material, the status is unknown, and that gap stays open.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A regional manager for a brand-owned store submits a daily sales report check request. The source text reads: "Store A, 18 June 2024, the POS daily sales report shows daily sales of 12,000 yuan; the shift schedule for the same day shows three sales staff on duty; the inventory transfer order shows two items requested for transfer that day." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "Store A met its daily sales target that day, and the transfer request has been approved." The sales target value and the transfer approval status do not appear in the source text. Both statements are unsupported by the supplied material.
This sample is a paper exercise only. It is not a real customer, a real store, or a completed test. The authorization boundary is the regional manager's request scope: the request covers Store A for 18 June 2024 and the three listed documents, and nothing beyond that scope is treated as verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting on this page | Basis and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect store ID, report date, and sales amount | The official description states the node collects required information and passes it to later nodes |
| User selection node | Set a "continue check" branch and a "stop" branch | The official description states the node executes the "yes" branch after the user chooses |
| Interaction state handling | Enter the interaction state and record the workflow state when triggered | The official description covers interaction node behavior; no separate global switch is set |
| Output handoff | Pass the form fields to later retrieval or judgment nodes | Compare each output field against the input field it should match |
| External action split | Transfer approval and inventory writes connect to a separate business interface | The official description states external synchronization requires a separate interface or later process |
| Hypothetical trial starting value | Sales amount comparison threshold set to 0 yuan | This is a hypothetical starting value for this exercise; it is chosen so the report value is compared against a fixed reference, and it is not an official default |
Three common errors
- Treating the store ID and sales amount collected by the form input node as already verified operating data. The form only collects values; business verification requires a separate comparison against POS or ERP inventory records. Check: take the input sample "Store A, 12,000 yuan," compare the form field against the POS report source text, and treat the check as satisfied only when the same subject, the same period, and the same field match in value.
- Treating the "continue check" branch of the user selection node as a transfer approval. The user selection only decides the flow direction and produces no approval effect. Check: take the input sample "two items requested for transfer that day," compare that record against any approval status field, and record the result as pending verification when the material states no approval outcome.
- Treating a similar result returned by retrieval as a permission filter or an entity isolation measure. A similarity score does not judge store ownership or authorization scope. Check: take the store ID in the input sample, compare the store identifier in the retrieval result against the requesting store identifier, exclude records whose identifiers do not match, and record the actual observation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source text "Store A, 18 June 2024, the POS daily sales report shows daily sales of 12,000 yuan." Compare the target value in the draft sentence "Store A met its daily sales target that day" against the source text. The source text contains no sales target field. The expected result is unsupported, and the evidence gap is recorded.
- Input the source text "the inventory transfer order shows two items requested for transfer that day." Compare the approval status in the draft sentence "the transfer request has been approved" against the source text. The source text states only the request action. The expected result is pending verification, and the status is not recorded as approved or rejected.
- Input the store ID and report date from the sample. Compare the output fields of the form input node against the fields received by the later judgment node. The output handoff check is satisfied only when store ID, date, and sales amount correspond one by one and match in value. If any field is missing, record the result as unsupported.