What the documents look like
Fresh-fruit store procurement runs on wholesale market pricing and grade-based acceptance. The working document set is the purchase order, the acceptance record, the pesticide-residue test report, and the shrinkage record. These documents update daily or per batch. For operating reports and exception review, the fields from all four document types must be aligned to the same batch, the same supplier, and the same date range. Only then can a shrinkage exception be traced to a grade deviation at acceptance or to a sales-side problem.
Workflow routing at this step fixes the order in which documents are collected, the interaction confirmation points, and the place where output is handed off. The purpose is to keep the reporting basis from drifting with individual memory. The interaction nodes described in the official v4.17.2 material are the form input node and the user selection node. The form input node triggers an interaction state, records the workflow state, collects required information, and passes that information to later nodes after submission. The user selection node also enters an interaction state, and after the user makes a choice it executes the corresponding "yes" branch.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The interaction state is recorded by the node itself. The documentation does not describe a separate global state-recording switch, and none should be assumed. The collected information must be passed explicitly to a later retrieval, judgment, or interface node, and the output must be compared item by item against the input. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a downstream process. Retrieval and form submission do not constitute authorization to execute.
Hypothetical drill sample. A store fresh-produce supervisor submits a paper document. The source text reads: "On 10 March 2025, Supplier A delivered one batch of apples to Store A. Acceptance record number YS-0310, grade marked as Grade 1, pesticide-residue test report number JC-0310, shrinkage record number SH-0310, quantity 200 kg." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "This batch has completed acceptance and can be used in the March operating report." The material states only the delivery and the document numbers. It does not state an acceptance conclusion, a review signature, or the reporting period to which the batch belongs. Both completion of acceptance and usability for the report remain to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enabled; required fields set to supplier, batch date, acceptance record number, test report number, shrinkage record number | Collects the five identifiers in the sample; submission is blocked when a field is missing |
| User selection node | Enabled; branch question "Has the acceptance conclusion been signed"; yes branch leads to report generation, no branch leads to a pending-verification record | The sample states no signature, so the no branch applies |
| Interaction state check | The node enters an interaction state on trigger; submitted information is passed to later nodes and compared item by item against the input | Checks whether all five sample fields are passed through completely |
| Output handoff | Collected information is passed to a later retrieval or judgment node; it is not written directly to a business database | The sample information is used for comparison only and does not trigger a database write |
| External operation separation | Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization connect to a separate business interface | The sample involves no actual write |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Required-field completeness is measured against the five sample fields as the comparison basis; one missing field blocks submission | This is a starting point for this drill, not an official default |
Three common errors
- Treating a collected acceptance record number as evidence that acceptance is complete. The sample states only record number YS-0310. It states no acceptance conclusion and no signature. The collection action does not equal completed acceptance.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as automatic execution of report generation. The sample states no signature, so the no branch applies and a pending-verification record is kept. A branch connection does not equal an executed business action.
- Treating retrieval output or form output as grounds for an authorized write. In the sample, information passed to later nodes is used for comparison only. Order writing and document backfill require a separate business interface. Retrieval does not carry an authorization function.
How to verify the setup
- Input the five fields of the sample source text together with the draft sentence. Compare the required-field completeness rate and the acceptance-conclusion field. If the form output contains all five fields and the acceptance conclusion is empty, the pending-verification condition is met. If the output directly marks acceptance as complete, the condition is not met.
- Input the sample into the user selection node. Compare the branch taken against the signature status. If a missing signature field leads to the no branch and a pending-verification record, the condition is met. If the yes branch is taken and a report is generated, the condition is not met.
- Input an empty-result handoff scenario and check the downstream design against the paper input []. If the downstream shows no record and retains the pending-verification marker, the condition is met. If the downstream fills in values automatically or triggers a write, the condition is not met.
In each check, the comparison must use the same subject, the same period, and the same field. A field that is not stated, or for which only related-stage evidence exists, is unsupported or pending verification. It is not a contradiction and it is not a negative finding. A pending review does not prove that an operating permission is absent. Signature, agreement reached, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. These checks describe expected behavior; no test has been run against real records.