What the documents look like
Handover of parcels from a warehouse to a carrier happens at the point where parcels leave the warehouse. The central fact of this stage is the carrier scan responsibility: the carrier scan record, not the warehouse dispatch record, marks the point at which responsibility passes. The main data sources named for this category are the courier system, WMS shipment data, the GB/T courier service standard, and carrier billing. The documents handled day to day are electronic waybills, handover lists, pickup scan records, and exception parcel registers. Data updates per batch and per day.
These facts shape what workflow routing can and cannot do on this page. The page covers operations permissions and handover management inside workflow routing for this category. It does not construct business functions that the supplied material does not support. The documents listed above are the materials a routing design works with; a scan record that has not been returned is not a completed handover, and a handover list that has been submitted is not a scan confirmation.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the required form information the user submits and passes that information to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user makes a choice. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch.
Several constraints follow. The interaction state and the recording of workflow state are behaviors of the interaction nodes; this page does not introduce or claim a separate global state-recording switch. The information collected must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and the output must be compared item by item against the input. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later flow; a form or a retrieval result does not constitute authorized execution. Branch connections must be verified one by one. A pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not an execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A warehouse dispatch team submits a handover list dated 10 June 2025. The source text reads: "This batch contains 120 electronic waybills; the handover counterparty is carrier A's outlet; the pickup scan record is pending return; the exception parcel register has 3 entries." A draft sentence reads: "The pickup scan records have all been returned and the handover is complete." The draft sentence lacks scan-return evidence and is judged unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Documented official behavior | Enters interaction state on trigger and collects required information |
| User Selection node | Documented official behavior | Executes the "yes" branch after the user makes a choice |
| Interaction state check | Implementation check | Recorded state is interaction-node behavior; no global switch is set |
| Output handoff check | Implementation check | Collected information is explicitly passed to later nodes |
| External action split | Implementation check | Order writing, document backfill, and external status sync require a separate interface |
| Hypothetical starting value | Assumed trial baseline for this page | 120 items used as the comparison baseline, compared against the actual count of returned pickup scan records |
The 120-item figure is an assumed starting value chosen for this paper exercise because the sample source text states it as the batch quantity. It is not an official default. The comparison method is to set the stated batch quantity against the count of pickup scan records actually returned for that batch.
Three common errors
- Treating required information collected by the Form Input node as authorized execution. The input is the form submission value; the comparison is whether that value is passed to a later interface node; the observable result is that the business action has not executed when no interface is connected.
- Treating the "yes" branch of the User Selection node as a completed approval. The input is the selection result; the comparison is whether the branch connection points to an approval interface; the observable result is that approval is not complete when only the branch executes and no approval record exists.
- Treating a retrieval result or a relevance score as a permission or entity-isolation basis. The input is the retrieval output; the comparison is whether it contains unauthorized records; the observable result is that permission is not verified when retrieval does not carry authorization filtering.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text: "This batch contains 120 electronic waybills; the handover counterparty is carrier A's outlet; the pickup scan record is pending return." Compare the draft sentence "The pickup scan records have all been returned" against the source status. The observable result is that the source states the record is pending return, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Input the hypothetical sample fact that the exception parcel register has 3 entries. Compare whether the handover list includes that field. The observable result is that the list does not state the exception handling result, so that field remains to be verified.
- Input the paper empty result []. Compare whether the downstream design handles an empty reference. The observable result is that the downstream empty-result branch is undefined, so empty-result handling remains to be supplemented.
These checks state expected observations. They do not claim that any test, deployment, approval, or handover was actually performed.