What the documents look like
A fresh-food concession counter in a hypermarket is commonly run by a supplier working on site under a sales-share arrangement. The working materials are the concession contract, the daily sales report, the shrinkage (loss) sheet, and the food incoming inspection record. The daily sales report is produced each day; the incoming inspection record is produced per batch. These two materials therefore move on different rhythms, and a workflow has to carry both without treating one as a substitute for the other. Reconciling weighed sales, handling shrinkage allocation, and checking incoming goods certificates are the three most time-consuming steps, and a handover frequently involves several of these materials moving at once. Each material records sales, shrinkage, or incoming goods information. None of them directly states who is authorized to perform a handover action, so the permission question needs a separate basis.
For this page the relevant point is narrow: during an operations handover, which materials, actions, and requests sit in which authorization state, and where a form submission or a retrieval result must not be read as authorization to execute.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
In FastGPT v4.17.2, 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 downward after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the required information the user submits and passes it to subsequent nodes. The user selection node is also a user-interaction node: it triggers the same interaction state and state recording, and when the user makes a choice the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and both trigger execution.
These behaviors define what the routing step can and cannot do. A form collects values. It does not constitute business authorization. A retrieval result returns related content; it does not constitute permission or entity isolation. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization each require a separate business interface or a downstream process. The interaction state and its recording are behaviors of the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch should be assumed. The "yes" branch of a user selection node must be verified connection by connection rather than assumed.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A store fresh-food department submits a handover request with the following material text. "Concession contract (No. LX-2024-031) provides that Party B operates leafy vegetables at counter 3, contract term ending 31 December 2024." "The 12 June daily sales report states counter 3 leafy vegetable sales of 4,820 yuan; the shrinkage sheet states 36 kg written off." "The 12 June food incoming inspection record states the batch of leafy vegetables arrived at 120 kg, supplier being a certain vegetable cooperative." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "The 12 June leafy vegetable handover is complete, and shrinkage is borne by the supplier." The materials do not state a handover completion status and do not state who bears shrinkage. Both of those elements in the draft sentence are unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented official behavior | Triggers the interaction state, collects required information, passes it to subsequent nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Documented official behavior | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice; verify branch connections one by one |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | State recording is interaction-node behavior; no separate global state-recording switch is set or claimed |
| Output handoff check | Implementation check | Pass collected information explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes; compare each output against its input |
| External action separation | Implementation check | Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate interface or downstream process |
| Hypothetical trial starting value for this page | Hypothetical value | Required form fields set to 3, chosen to cover subject, date, and counter; compare against the actual field count in the material |
Three common errors
- Treating a form submission as handover authorization. The form input node collects values and passes them on; it does not grant permission. If a draft sentence says the handover is complete, compare that against whether the materials state a completion status. In the sample the materials do not state it, so the content is unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval result as a permission filter. A relevance score does not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval is not authorization. If retrieval in the sample returned a concession contract fragment, that shows the content is related; it does not show the supplier is entitled to bear shrinkage.
- Treating a pending review as an absence of permission. The sample draft sentence touches who bears shrinkage, and the materials state no allocation clause. A pending-verification status preserves the evidence gap; it does not yield a negative conclusion, and no authorization clause should be supplied to reach a definite answer.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the draft sentence "The 12 June leafy vegetable handover is complete, and shrinkage is borne by the supplier." Compare "handover is complete" against whether the materials state a completion status, and compare "shrinkage is borne by the supplier" against whether the materials state a bearing party. When neither is stated, the draft sentence is unsupported and the gap is recorded.
- Input the contract number, date, and counter number from the sample materials against the corresponding fields in the draft sentence. Compare whether subject, period, and field agree. The contract term ends 31 December 2024 and 12 June falls inside it; if the draft sentence names another counter or another date, it disagrees with the materials. Judgment requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field; only a mutually exclusive value in the same field counts as a contradiction, while an unstated value or a merely related stage is unsupported or pending.
- Input an empty result [] on paper and check whether the downstream design explicitly handles an empty result and records the gap. Do not claim retrieval necessarily returns []; observe the actual return and record it. For libraries spanning different vector models, first check the identifier and exclude those that do not match; do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall. Mixed-result fusion is a fusion process and is not written as a switch to enable. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires a model enabled under its settings; the optional paths in a general flow diagram do not all execute on every request.
The expected outcome of these checks is a recorded comparison result, not a claim that any test, deployment, approval, or refund took place. Where the materials are silent, the gap stays open.