What the documents look like
Brand concession counters inside shopping malls operate under a different data arrangement from brand-owned street stores. The mall runs unified checkout and settles on a concession-fee basis, so the counter's sales and expense figures pass through the mall's systems before reaching the brand. The working materials for a handover are the joint-operation concession contract, mall activity letters, sales receipts, and monthly reconciliation statements. These come from the mall POS, the brand ERP, mall member campaigns, and the finance system, and they update daily and monthly.
For operations handover, the practical consequence is that two sides must compare the same entity, the same period, and the same field. A sales amount recorded by the mall and a fee amount recorded by the brand can differ in timing and in definition, so a handover cannot treat one side's number as automatically matching the other. The documents themselves carry different roles: the contract states the concession ratio and its valid range, an activity letter states which party bears a discount, receipts record individual sales, and the reconciliation statement records a period total and the resulting fee.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
In the documented workflow nodes, the form input node and the user selection node are both user-interaction nodes. When either is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The form input node collects required information filled in by the user and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node judges the user's choice and executes the corresponding branch. The recorded interaction state is behavior of the interaction node itself; no separate global state-recording switch is described.
Information collected at these nodes must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs must be compared item by item against inputs. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process; the node itself does not perform those business actions. Retrieval or a submitted form does not constitute authorized execution. During operations handover, which materials, operations, and requests sit at which authorization state must be checked by people, and a retrieval result or form submission cannot be treated as completed authorization.
Hypothetical drill sample: A brand counter signs a joint-operation concession contract with a mall. The contract states a concession ratio of twenty percent of the month's tax-inclusive sales, valid from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. A mall activity letter states that a March 2025 spend-and-save campaign has its discount portion borne by the mall, and the counter settles at the original price. A monthly reconciliation statement states that March 2025 tax-inclusive sales were 80,000 yuan and the concession fee was 16,000 yuan. Draft sentence to be judged: "The March 2025 concession fee has been settled on the post-campaign net amount, and the counter does not need to check further." This sentence involves the relationship between entity, period, field, and the range stated in the contract, and must be checked item by item.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Hypothetical starting point and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | On trigger, enters interaction state, collects required information, passes it to later nodes after submission | Starting point: required fields set to contract number, reconciliation period, and sales field value; reason is that checking needs the same entity, period, and field against the reconciliation statement text |
| User selection node | After the user makes a choice, executes the corresponding branch; verify branch connections one by one | Starting point: a "material status" choice with options "signed and effective", "pending review", "not stated"; compared against the status stated in the contract text |
| Interaction state check | The recorded state is behavior of the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch is asserted | Starting point: check whether the conversation enters the interaction state after the trigger, compared against the documented description; submission counts and automatic judgments are not assumed |
| Output handoff check | Collected information is explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes; outputs and inputs are compared item by item | Starting point: check whether form output field names match the input field names of later nodes, compared against the node configuration interface |
| External action division | Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later process | Starting point: check whether the handover request contains an authorized execution action, compared against the authorized range stated in the contract; record a gap when missing |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result or a submitted form as authorized execution. In the hypothetical sample, the form collects the contract number and reconciliation period, and the form itself does not judge whether the contract is effective or whether the concession fee has been settled. The check input is the form output field; the comparison object is the valid range and signing status stated in the contract text; the observable result is that the form output contains no authorization conclusion.
- Treating a pending-review status as missing operating authority. In the hypothetical sample, if the contract text states only "pending review", that status does not show that the counter lacks authority to perform reconciliation. The check input is the status field in the contract text; the comparison object is the three values "signed and effective", "pending review", and "not stated"; the observable result is that pending review is classified as unsupported or awaiting verification, not as a denial or a conflict.
- Judging values from different periods or different fields directly as contradictory. In the hypothetical sample, the reconciliation statement states March sales and the concession fee, while the contract states the concession ratio and valid range; these are different fields. The check input is the sales field of the statement and the concession ratio field of the contract; the comparison object is values of the same period and same field; the observable result is that differing fields are recorded as needing supplementary checking, not judged as contradictory.
How to verify the setup
- For the hypothetical draft sentence "The March 2025 concession fee has been settled on the post-campaign net amount, and the counter does not need to check further", the input is the contract's stated concession ratio and valid range, the activity letter's stated bearer of the discount, and the statement's sales and concession fee. Compare whether the draft sentence matches the contract's stated ratio, whether it matches the activity letter's stated bearer, and whether it matches the statement fields. The observable result is that when the draft sentence disagrees with the contract's stated ratio, it is recorded as unsupported, and settlement is not judged complete.
- For the hypothetical handover request "backfill the March statement data into the brand ERP and synchronize the concession fee", the input is the backfill and synchronization actions in the request and the authorized range stated in the contract. Compare whether the requested actions fall within the contract's stated authorized range and whether a separate business interface is required. The observable result is that when the node configuration contains no corresponding interface, it is recorded as requiring a separate system implementation, and backfill or synchronization is not claimed to have been executed.
- For empty-result handoff, the input is an explicit paper input []. Compare whether the downstream node is designed with a branch for the empty result. The observable result is that when the downstream node is not designed for an empty result, a gap is recorded, and no claim is made that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; check the identifier first and exclude those that do not match, record the actual observation, and do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.