What the documents look like
Fresh fruit store procurement runs on four recurring records: purchase orders, acceptance sheets, pesticide-residue test reports, and shrinkage logs. Wholesale market pricing and supplier quotes refresh by day and by batch, and store sales data shows how quickly stock moves. Purchasing here depends on grade-based acceptance at the point of receipt, which differs from headquarters-standard meal ordering in convenience retail.
At the moment of operations handover, these records sit in different authorization states. A purchase order may be pending review. An acceptance sheet may already be signed. A pesticide-residue test report may only show that a given batch was submitted for testing. A shrinkage log may reflect a single count period. Workflow routing has to pass these states forward honestly: a pending item is not an approved item, and a submission-for-testing report is not a whole-batch certificate of conformity.
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 only after the user completes the interaction. The node collects the required information the user submits and passes it to later nodes. The user selection node behaves the same way at trigger time; once the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and runs the corresponding "yes" branch. Branch connections need to be verified one by one. The interaction state is a behavior of the interaction nodes; no separate global state-recording switch is documented.
Information that is collected must be explicitly handed to a later retrieval, judgment, or interface node, and outputs must be compared item by item against inputs. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. Retrieval and form submission do not by themselves constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise, clearly labeled as invented for this page: a store fresh-produce supervisor submits a purchase order whose source text reads "Purchase order no. CG-2025-0417, supplier East City wholesale stall, category Red Fuji apples, quantity 200 cases, unit price to be confirmed, status pending review." A separate acceptance sheet reads "Acceptance sheet no. YS-2025-0417, corresponding purchase order CG-2025-0417, arrived 180 cases, grade first-class, acceptance conclusion qualified, acceptance person has signed." A draft sentence reads "CG-2025-0417 is approved; payment may be arranged for 200 cases." The question is whether that draft sentence is consistent with the source materials. The purchase order status is pending review, and the acceptance sheet records only 180 cases arrived and accepted as qualified. Neither source states payment approval or full delivery of 200 cases. The draft sentence conflicts with the sources on status and quantity and remains unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check for this page | Relation to the exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enters interaction state on trigger; collects required information and passes it to later nodes | Collects purchase order number, supplier, category fields |
| User selection node | Runs the corresponding "yes" branch after the user chooses | Confirms the routing branch for the handover request |
| Interaction state check | State recording is a behavior of the interaction node; no separate global switch is documented | Checks whether the pending-review status is recorded faithfully |
| Output handoff check | Collected information is explicitly passed to a later retrieval, judgment, or interface node | Compares the draft sentence against the purchase order and acceptance sheet |
| External action split | Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface | Payment arrangement is not executed inside this node |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review purchase order as approved. Input: the purchase order source text. Compare: the status field, "pending review" against "approved." Observable result: the status values do not match, and the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a qualified acceptance as full delivery. Input: the purchase order and acceptance sheet source texts. Compare: the quantity fields, 200 cases against 180 cases. Observable result: the quantity values do not match, and full delivery is unsupported.
- Treating retrieval or form submission as authorized execution. Input: the form input node output. Compare: whether any payment or write action appears downstream. Observable result: the node only passes information; no payment is executed.
How to verify the setup
- Take the purchase order source text and the draft sentence. Input the purchase order status field. Compare "pending review" with "approved." The expected observation is a mismatch, so the draft sentence is not supported by the source.
- Take the purchase order and acceptance sheet source texts. Input the quantity fields. Compare 200 cases with 180 cases. The expected observation is a mismatch, so full delivery is not supported.
- Take the form input node output. Input the collected purchase order number and supplier information. Compare whether a downstream node shows a payment or write action. The expected observation is that the node only passes information and no payment is executed.
For an empty-result handoff, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design; this page does not claim that a retrieval over invented rules must return []. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; verify identifiers first and exclude non-matching items, then record what is actually observed. Optional paths shown in an overall workflow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. Retrieval checks should record observations and failure branches rather than guarantee a first hit, full recall, or an empty result for an unrelated query.