What the documents look like
Closure settlement handles exit and asset recovery, the reverse direction from site selection and store opening. The main data comes from POS inventory, fixed-asset systems, lease contracts and financial ledgers. Routine documents include closure approvals, inventory clearance forms, lease termination agreements and asset count sheets. Records are updated irregularly, once per store. In cross-border situations a single lease termination agreement may exist in both a Chinese version and a foreign-language version, and the item names on an inventory clearance form must be aligned across languages with the asset numbers on an asset count sheet.
The state of these materials directly shapes workflow routing. A closure approval may sit at pending review. A lease termination agreement may be signed but not yet effective. An inventory clearance form may still be a draft. The Form Input node and the User Selection node are both user-interaction nodes: when triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user finishes the interaction. The Form Input node collects required information and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding yes branch. Retrieval on its own does not constitute authorization, and the state of any retrieved material must be checked by a person.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The workflow only collects and passes information. Business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each require a separate business interface or a later process. Semantic recall and relevance scores between retrieval libraries do not carry permission or entity-isolation duties, and a similarity setting cannot exclude unrelated stores or unauthorized records. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the model identifier must be checked first and non-matching libraries excluded. The optional paths shown in an overall document flow diagram do not mean that every request executes all of them: image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires a model and must be enabled in the settings. An empty result can be carried downstream, and the downstream design can be checked against a clearly written paper input.
Configuration and implementation checks
The following is a hypothetical paper exercise used to explain configuration and checking method. It does not indicate that any real business action has been carried out.
Hypothetical exercise sample. Source text one: "Party A and Party B signed a lease contract on 1 March 2024, with a lease term running to 28 February 2027; Party B submitted a closure application on 10 June 2025, and the status of that application is pending review." Source text two: "Inventory clearance form number QC-2025-018, store number SH-027, clearance quantity 120 items, prepared-by signature present, warehouse receipt column blank." Draft sentence to be assessed: "The store's closure application has been approved, the lease has been terminated, and inventory clearance has been completed."
| Configuration item | Setting or check relevant to this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect store number, document type, language version, fields to be checked | Needs to collect SH-027 and QC-2025-018 as inputs |
| User Selection node | Execute the corresponding yes branch after the user makes a choice | Used to confirm whether the draft sentence enters the manual review branch |
| Interaction state recording | Workflow state is recorded when an interaction node is triggered | Execution waits for the manual check result to be submitted |
| Output handover | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes | Compare output against input store number item by item |
| Retrieval scope check | Check the vector model identifier used by the target library and exclude non-matching libraries | Libraries on different models are not associated together |
| External action division | Approval, writes and synchronization require a separate business interface or later process | A form submission does not produce an approval or a clearance result |
Three common errors
- Treating a closure application at pending review as approved. Source text one states that the application status is pending review, while the draft sentence says it has been approved. The input is source text one, the comparison object is the application status field, and the observable result is that the value of the status field does not match the approval claim in the draft sentence.
- Treating an inventory clearance form with a blank warehouse receipt column as completed clearance. Source text two shows a prepared-by signature and a blank warehouse receipt column. The input is source text two, the comparison object is the content of the receipt column, and the observable result is that the receipt column holds no record, so the clearance-completed claim in the draft sentence is not supported.
- Confusing signature with effectiveness. Source text one does not state whether the lease termination agreement has been signed or has taken effect, while the draft sentence says the lease has been terminated. The input is source text one, the comparison object is the field relating to lease termination, and the observable result is that the field is not stated, which is an evidence gap.
How to verify the setup
- Input source text one together with the draft sentence, compare the application status field against the approval claim in the draft sentence, and observe that when the status field reads pending review the claim is judged not supported and the gap is recorded. The expectation is not supported; no claim is made that this was actually tested.
- Input source text two together with the draft sentence, compare the warehouse receipt column against the clearance-completed claim, and observe that when the receipt column is blank the clearance-completed claim is judged not supported. The expectation is not supported; no claim is made that this was actually tested.
- Input the paper empty result [] together with the downstream design, compare whether the downstream node defines its branch on an empty input, and observe that when the downstream does not treat the empty result as an authorized record the handover design is judged usable. The expectation is that the design check passes; no claim is made that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
The public technical facts checked for this feature are: the Form Input node enters an interaction state when triggered, collects required information, and passes it to later nodes after submission; the User Selection node executes the corresponding yes branch after the user makes a choice, and branch connections are verified one by one; recording state is behaviour of the interaction nodes, and no separate global state-recording switch is set or claimed; collected information is passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes, with output compared against input item by item; and order writes, document backfill and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later process.