What the documents look like
FBA preparation moves inventory ahead of demand into platform warehouses. The category's central risks are inbound receiving and inventory age, and the typical consequences named in the brief are lost ranking from stockouts, higher storage fees, and failed claims. This page works with four document types: FBA inbound plans, box labels, inventory reports, and compensation applications. The main data sources are Amazon Seller Central, FBA inventory reports, freight forwarder tracking, and ERP purchase orders. Daily and weekly update rhythms describe how often these materials refresh; they do not imply batch synchronization, full synchronization, real-time feeds, or transaction-triggered mechanisms.
For cross-border materials and multilingual retrieval, the workflow routing step is where the original text, status, and authorization boundary of these materials are handed to workflow nodes. Retrieval itself does not grant authorization. A retrieval hit on an inventory report is a retrieval result, not permission to file a compensation application.
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 fills required information and submits, the node collects the submitted values and passes them to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node: it enters the interaction state, and when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The interaction state and state recording are the node's own behavior. There is no separate global state-recording switch, and the documentation does not guarantee a number of submissions or a snapshot guarantee.
Collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs must be compared against inputs item by item. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separately connected business interface or a later process; the nodes do not perform these actions automatically. A retrieval library requires the same vector model for shared association. That requirement constrains the retrieval library identifier only and does not extend to business registration sites or other external systems. A relevance score does not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval results do not constitute authorization. Empty-result handling can be checked against a paper input of [] to verify downstream design; this does not claim that any fictional rule returns empty.
Hypothetical paper exercise (not executed). The material text for comparison reads: "Inbound plan number PLAN-0912, subject is a cross-border seller, object is one batch of FBA inbound shipments, status is pending review, effective scope is box label and inventory report reconciliation for this batch." One draft sentence to be judged reads: "This inbound plan has been approved and a compensation application can be filed directly." The judgment requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The source text records only "pending review," which is mutually exclusive with "approved" on the same status field, so the draft sentence is unsupported. Whether a compensation application may be filed is not stated in the source text; that evidence gap remains open.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input required fields | Inbound plan number, subject, object, status | Aligns with the four elements in the sample text; compare submitted values against the source item by item |
| User Selection branch | A "yes" branch carries status reconciliation | Verify the branch connection as documented; no other branches are assumed |
| Information passing target | A later retrieval or judgment node | Compare node output against input fields for consistency |
| Retrieval library vector model identifier | Recorded as library A model identifier | Compare against the identifier of the library to be associated; if different, exclude shared association |
| External operation division | Order writing, document backfill, external synchronization | Check whether a business interface is connected; if not, record the gap |
| Empty-result handling | Paper input [] | Check whether downstream design states how empty input is handled; no actual return is claimed |
The values in this table are starting points for this paper exercise and are not official default values.
Three common errors
- Treating "pending review" as approved. The input is the status field of the same inbound plan. The source text says "pending review" and the draft sentence says "approved." Comparing the two values on the same field shows mutual exclusivity, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval result as authorization. If a retrieved inventory report is used as the basis for filing a compensation application, the input is the retrieval output and the authorization field for the compensation application. Compare whether authorization is stated. If the authorization field is absent, record the evidence gap.
- Associating libraries with different vector models. The input is the model identifiers of two retrieval libraries. Compare the identifiers. If they differ, exclude shared association and record the actual observation, without inferring missed recall or redundant results.
How to verify the setup
- Check the Form Input node against the sample text. Input: "Inbound plan number PLAN-0912, subject, object, status pending review." Compare submitted values against the four source elements. If each item matches and the status has not been rewritten, the condition is met; if a submitted value shows "approved," it is not met.
- Check User Selection and information passing against the draft sentence. Input: the draft sentence "This inbound plan has been approved and a compensation application can be filed directly." Compare its status field against the source text's "pending review." Mutual exclusivity means the draft sentence is unsupported. Then check whether the later node received that judgment; if it did not, record the passing gap.
- Check empty-result handling against the paper input []. Input: an empty-result paper input. Compare whether the downstream design explicitly handles empty input. If the design states a handling method, the condition is met; if the design assumes a hit always exists, it is not met. For cross-model cases, check identifiers first and exclude non-matching libraries; do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.