What the documents look like
Regional dealer stock replenishment runs as a daily rolling order flow, which differs from seasonal centralized ordering. The main data sources are the dealer ERP, the brand ordering system, warehouse inventory, and sales receipts. The working documents are replenishment requests, inventory turnover sheets, outbound delivery notes, and payment plans. Data updates on a weekly or monthly cadence; the supplied material does not describe a finer synchronization mechanism.
For operations handover, workflow routing has to read the authorization state attached to each of these four document types. A replenishment request may or may not have been submitted by the requesting party. An inventory turnover sheet may or may not belong to the current reconciliation period. An outbound delivery note may or may not correspond to a confirmed shipment fact. A payment plan may sit at pending review or at confirmed. The form input node and the user selection node both enter an interaction state, record the workflow state, and continue execution after the user completes the interaction. What these interaction nodes collect or judge is the content the user fills in or selects; they do not change the business state of the documents themselves.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node collects required information and, after submission, passes that information to later nodes. The user selection node, after the user makes a choice, executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both are user interaction nodes: on trigger, the conversation enters an interaction state, the dialog box is hidden, and the workflow state is recorded. These are existing node behaviors. They do not constitute approval of a replenishment request, an outbound delivery note, or a payment plan. Order writes, document backfill, and external state synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process.
Content collected through retrieval or through a form cannot be treated as authorized execution. A relevance score does not carry permission or entity isolation. Retrieval by itself does not complete authorization. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the identifier must be checked first and non-matching libraries excluded.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: On 9 June 2025, a regional dealer sales back-office clerk submits a replenishment request. The requesting subject is "East China regional dealer A." The object is stock replenishment for a given model. The quantity is 120 units. The status field of the request reads, verbatim, "Submitted, pending review by the brand channel manager." In the same batch of materials, the inventory turnover sheet is marked with a period of May 2025, the outbound delivery note is marked "80 units shipped on 8 June 2025," and the payment plan is marked "pending review." One proposed copy sentence reads: "This replenishment request has been approved; 120 units can be arranged for shipment." The pending request is: "Please check the above materials and confirm whether this replenishment request has been approved."
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below centers on checking material states and node outputs for the sample. It does not treat database internals as a required item on every page. The hypothetical trial starting point is used only for this paper check and is not an official default value.
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Basis and explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect the replenishment request number, requesting subject, object, quantity, and submission date | The node collects required information and passes it to later nodes |
| User selection node | Set two branches, "materials complete" and "materials missing" | After the user makes a choice, the corresponding "yes" branch executes |
| Interaction state check | After triggering the form input or user selection node, check whether the interaction state is entered | Interaction nodes record state; no separate global switch is set |
| Output handoff check | Explicitly pass collected information to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes | Compare each output against its input |
| External action division | Mark that order writes, document backfill, and external state synchronization require a separate interface | The nodes themselves do not complete these business actions |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Use "pending review by the brand channel manager" as the state comparison baseline for this check | This value comes from the sample text and is used to compare against the proposed copy sentence |
Three common errors
- Treating replenishment request information collected by the form input node as approval. The input is the sample text "Submitted, pending review by the brand channel manager"; the comparison object is the proposed copy sentence "has been approved"; the observable result is that the two states do not match, and the proposed sentence is not supported.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the user selection node as business authorization. The input is the pending request in the sample; the comparison object is the node branch design; the observable result is that the branch only determines the direction of later flow and does not produce an approval fact.
- Treating a retrieval result or relevance score as a permission filter. The input is the sample material; the comparison object is the retrieved content against the authorization boundary; the observable result is that retrieval does not carry entity isolation, and shipment permission cannot be confirmed on that basis.
How to verify the setup
- Against the sample text "Submitted, pending review by the brand channel manager" and the proposed copy sentence "This replenishment request has been approved; 120 units can be arranged for shipment," the input is these two passages, the comparison field is the request status, and the observable result is that the status field holds a pending-review value, the proposed sentence does not match the source text, and the sentence is judged unsupported.
- Against the outbound delivery note "80 units shipped on 8 June 2025" and the payment plan "pending review" in the sample, the input is these two materials, the comparison objects are the shipment fact and the payment state, and the observable result is that the delivery note corresponds to a shipment that has occurred while the payment plan remains pending review; the two cannot be merged into an approved or paid state.
- Against the pending request "Please check the above materials and confirm whether this replenishment request has been approved," the input is that request together with the sample materials, the comparison object is the state the request asks about against the state recorded in the materials, and the observable result is that the materials show only pending review, the approval evidence the request needs is missing, the conclusion remains pending verification, and no shipment or write operation is executed.