What the documents look like
Central chain procurement and distribution covers head-office purchasing and delivery-center logistics. It does not inspect shelf presentation at individual stores. The operating-review task draws on ERP purchasing records, WMS records, store POS data, and supplier delivery data. The working documents are centralized procurement contracts, replenishment plans, delivery notes, and store requisition forms.
These materials belong to three different parties: purchasing, the distribution center, and the store. Their status fields differ. A contract carries two separate facts, signing and taking effect. A delivery note carries two stages, dispatch and receipt confirmation. A store requisition form carries two states, submission and acceptance. Workflow routing at this step organizes these materials by party, object, and period into inputs that can be checked, then uses the result collected through a form input node or a user selection node to decide the next path.
Data updates on a daily and weekly basis. Operating reviews normally compare figures within the same period. Data from different periods cannot be treated as a direct contradiction.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When a form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the required information and submits, the node passes that information to later nodes. A user selection node also enters an interactive state, and after the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Neither node carries business authorization. A retrieval result or a submitted form value only shows that information was collected. It does not show that a replenishment plan was approved, that a delivery note was executed, or that a contract took effect.
Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. The workflow itself does not produce those actions. Interactive waiting, state recording, and hiding the dialogue box are existing behaviors of the interactive nodes. No global state switch is added, and no number of submissions or snapshot guarantee is promised.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material to be checked reads, "Supply Chain Center A submitted the March replenishment plan for Distribution Center B for approval on March 10, 2026, and the status is pending review; the delivery note linked to the same plan has not been receipt-confirmed." The draft sentence to be judged reads, "The replenishment plan has been approved and the delivery wave can be scheduled." This sentence treats pending review as approved and treats an unconfirmed delivery note as a basis for execution. The source does not state the approver, the approval time, or the scope of delivery authorization. Those fields remain unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Use on this page | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect the period and store identifier from the store requisition form | Check whether the submitted fields reach later nodes |
| User selection node | Make the yes-branch decision on an operating-review conclusion | Check each branch connection against the selection result |
| Required field setting | Limit the input to period, party, and object | The interaction does not submit when a field is missing |
| Output handoff | Pass collected values to a retrieval or decision node | Compare the downstream input with the upstream output |
| External action split | Mark order writing and status synchronization | Confirm a separate business interface is connected |
| Interactive state record | Explain that the node enters an interactive state | Follow the documented behavior; add no switch |
This page specifies no numeric parameter. If a hypothetical trial needs a starting value, for example a seven-day comparison window for the operating review, the reason is that it covers one natural week of the delivery cycle, and the comparison method is to check the same field for the same store in the previous week. That value is only a starting point for this sample and is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a "pending review" value collected through a form as an approval result, then scheduling a delivery wave. The input is a form field value, the comparison object is the status field in the source material, and when the two do not match, the execution branch must not be entered.
- Treating records returned by retrieval as a permission-filtered result, then concluding that absence means no permission. Retrieval does not carry authorization. The party identifier and access scope must be checked separately.
- Reading the "yes" branch of a user selection node as a business approval. That branch only shows the user made a choice. Approval requires evidence of signing and taking effect.
How to verify the setup
- Take the hypothetical source text and draft sentence above. The input is the status field "pending review" in the source and the phrase "has been approved" in the draft. Compare the two values. When they do not match, judge the draft sentence unsupported and keep the evidence gap. The expected observation is a pending-verification finding, with no approval conclusion produced.
- Take the receipt-confirmation field of the same delivery note. The input is "not yet receipt-confirmed." Compare it with the premise "the delivery wave can be scheduled" in the draft sentence. When the premise is missing, record the condition as unmet and do not execute the later action.
- For empty-result handoff, use the explicit paper input [] to check the downstream design, and observe whether the downstream treats it as an empty set and preserves the gap. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
All three checks address the primary task on this page and do not extend into identity certification or report analysis.