What the documents look like
Omnichannel stock transfers move goods between stores and warehouses. The data sources are ERP inventory, store POS, e-commerce orders, and WMS. The daily documents are transfer requests, inventory snapshots, store shortage lists, and transfer logistics notes. These materials carry different authorization states during an operations handover: a transfer request may be pending review, an inventory snapshot is a record at a point in time, a store shortage list is an expression of demand, and a transfer logistics note reflects a transport handover.
This page addresses only workflow routing within operations permission and handover management for omnichannel stock transfers. Retrieval and form collection do not replace authorized execution. When the Form Input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, required information is collected, and that information is passed to later nodes. When the User Selection node receives a user choice, the corresponding "yes" branch executes. Both nodes record workflow state and wait for the user to complete the interaction before continuing. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The state of a transfer document must be checked separately from operating permission. A pending review does not show that operating permission is absent. Signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. Workflow routing collects and passes information; it does not automatically grant approval authority or execution authority.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand retail supply chain document states "Transfer request T-0417, requesting party is the East China regional store inventory keeper, object is 20 units of goods from Store A to e-commerce warehouse B, status is pending review, date is April 17." Another sentence states "Inventory snapshot S-0417 shows Store A has 18 units available for transfer, and store shortage list Q-0417 records that Store A is short 12 units of the same item." A draft sentence awaiting judgment is "Transfer request T-0417 has been approved and can execute the transfer of 20 units."
In this sample, pending review does not equal approval, the snapshot quantity and the request quantity do not match, and the shortage list only expresses demand. The draft sentence writes pending review as approved, which is an unsupported judgment.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers the sample and lists check items related to operations permission and handover management in workflow routing. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise only; they state the reason for the choice and the comparison object, and they do not represent official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Check method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect transfer request number and requesting party | After submission, pass to later nodes and compare output against input item by item |
| User Selection node | Set a "yes" branch for handover confirmation | After the user makes a choice, execute the corresponding branch and verify branch connections one by one |
| Interaction state check | Record state and wait after triggering | Recording state is behavior of the interaction node; no separate global state switch is set |
| Output handover check | Pass collected information to later judgment nodes | Compare output against input item by item to confirm complete transfer |
| External operation division | Order writes and status synchronization connect to a separate interface | Workflow routing does not automatically perform business writes or external synchronization |
| Retrieval scope check | Verify identifiers and exclude non-matching items | Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review transfer request as approved. Input is "status is pending review" for T-0417 in the sample; comparison is the draft sentence "has been approved"; the observable result is that the draft sentence does not match the status field in the source text, and the judgment is unsupported.
- Using retrieval results in place of authorization. Input is inventory snapshot S-0417 and shortage list Q-0417; comparison is whether an approval record exists; the observable result is that neither material states approval, and similar text found by retrieval does not constitute authorization.
- Treating form submission as completed external execution. Input is the request information collected by the Form Input node; comparison is whether a separate business interface is connected; the observable result is that the node only passes information, and order writes and status synchronization remain pending downstream implementation.
How to verify the setup
- For the sample draft sentence "Transfer request T-0417 has been approved and can execute the transfer of 20 units," input the source text "status is pending review"; compare whether the status field and "approved" share the same subject, the same period, and the same field; the condition is met only when the source text explicitly states approval. The current source text does not state it, so the judgment is pending verification.
- For the snapshot quantity of 18 units and the request quantity of 20 units in the sample, input both quantities; compare the values of the same object in the same field; a contradiction exists only when the values are explicitly mutually exclusive. The two numbers belong to the snapshot and the request, which are different fields, so this is recorded as an inconsistency pending verification.
- For the output of the Form Input node, input the request information collected by the node; compare whether later nodes receive it and use it for judgment; the condition is met only when output and input match item by item and later nodes explicitly accept it. Order writes and external synchronization require a separate interface, and no evidence of that interface is provided here, so it remains missing.