What the documents look like
Near-expiry markdown handling tracks the lifecycle of shelf inventory rather than weighing each order line. The working materials are near-expiry lists, markdown approvals, damage write-off forms and promotional price tags. Their data comes from POS stock age, store inspections, ERP inventory and quality inspection records. Cross-border material and multilingual retrieval must reconcile lists and price tags for the same batch across stores that operate in different languages. The three most time-consuming steps are identifying near-expiry batches, approving markdowns and isolating unsellable goods. Updates arrive at daily or shift level; this page does not infer batch synchronization or real-time triggers from that cadence.
A batch carries a batch number, a store, an arrival date, a shelf-life end date, a current status and an applicant. Those fields appear in more than one language, so retrieval has to match the same batch across differently worded lists and tags. Retrieval returns candidate material. It does not decide whether a markdown is approved, and it does not authorize any downstream 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 the workflow continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the required information the user submits and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node is also a user-interaction node. 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; no separate global state-recording switch is documented.
Retrieval results are candidate material only. They do not perform authorization judgment. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the operator checks identifiers first, excludes non-matching libraries and records what was actually observed.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A store submits a paper record whose source text reads: "Batch A-0715, Store Jia, arrived 15 July 2025, shelf life to 20 July 2025, current status is pending markdown approval, applicant: Store Manager Yi." A separate draft handover request reads: "Retrieve the markdown approval record for Batch A-0715 and, on that basis, mark the batch as markdown approved." The points to judge are the approval status and the authorization boundary of the draft request. The material does not state that approval took effect, and retrieval does not create authorization.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect batch number, store, arrival date, shelf life, current status | Matches the required fields in the sample source text |
| User selection node | Configure the "yes" branch for manual confirmation of approval status | The draft request's approval judgment runs through the manual branch |
| Interaction state check | Confirm the conversation enters the interaction state and the state is recorded after triggering | The sample continues downward after submission |
| Output handoff check | Compare collected information item by item against the inputs of later retrieval and judgment nodes | The sample fields pass into the retrieval node |
| External action separation | Marking a batch as markdown approved requires a separate business interface | Retrieval and the form do not perform that action |
| Retrieval scope check | Verify the vector model identifier and exclude libraries on different models | The sample searches only within the accessible target scope |
Hypothetical starting value for this exercise: set the form required fields to five items, because that matches the sample source text. The comparison method is an item-by-item check of whether the fields are complete. This is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as an approved markdown. The sample source text gives the status as pending markdown approval, while the draft request asks for the batch to be marked as approved. The subject and field are the same but the values are mutually exclusive, and the retrieval result does not constitute approval.
- Writing the value collected by the form directly into inventory status. The form only collects values. Database writes and external synchronization require a separate business interface, and the sample does not state that such an interface exists.
- Associating libraries across different vector models. The operator should check identifiers first and exclude non-matching libraries, and should not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft request, then compare the retrieval output against the approval status field. The condition is satisfied when the output contains no record that approval took effect and the draft request was not executed automatically. The expected result remains to be verified.
- Input an empty-result paper marker [] and compare whether downstream nodes accept it according to their empty-input design. The condition is satisfied when downstream does not treat the empty result as approval or rejection. This does not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
- Input the sample field list and compare the form output against the retrieval node input. The condition is satisfied when the five fields correspond item by item and no extra authorization action occurs. The expected result is not claimed to have been tested.
The checks above cover the named primary task of workflow routing for cross-border material and multilingual retrieval. They do not extend to identity certification, report analysis or any other task. Where the sample does not state an approval effective date, a signing event or an interface identifier, that evidence remains missing and is recorded as an open gap rather than filled in.