What the documents look like
Fresh-food weighing and sorting happens inside warehouse fulfilment, and the core facts are weight and specification. The supplied brief lists WMS, electronic scales, the order system and quality-inspection photos as the main data sources, with daily documents covering picking task sheets, weighing labels, short-weight compensation forms and quality-inspection records. Each document carries a different fact. A task sheet states the sorting object and the specification requirement. A label records a weighing result. A compensation form records a short-weight handling request. A quality-inspection record records an inspection. Operations permission and handover management has to determine what authorisation state a given material, operation or request holds at the moment of handover.
Two interaction nodes matter for this routing step. The form input node enters an interaction state when triggered, records the workflow state, collects required information, and after submission passes the collected information to later nodes. The user selection node also enters an interaction state when triggered, records the workflow state, and after the user makes a choice executes the corresponding branch. Both wait for the user to complete the interaction before the workflow continues. Retrieval and form collection do not by themselves constitute authorisation.
Fresh-food weighing and sorting data updates per order and per day, and the same batch of tasks can cross shifts during handover. That frequency affects how a routing design has to treat state, but it does not create any additional synchronisation mechanism beyond what the documents state.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Workflow routing has to pass information collected by an interaction node explicitly to later retrieval, judgement or interface nodes, and compare outputs against inputs item by item. Order writes, document backfill and external status synchronisation require a separate business interface or downstream process; the interaction nodes themselves do not perform those business actions. The interaction state record is behaviour of the interaction node, and no separate global state-recording switch is documented. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching items excluded. A relevance score does not perform permission or entity isolation.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Material text supplied for checking: picking task sheet A-0715 states "Object: store M-12, current batch of leafy greens, specification 500g±20g, picker Li, shift 2025-07-15 morning"; quality-inspection record Q-0715 states "Inspector Wang completed sampling inspection of this batch on 2025-07-15, conclusion: pending review"; short-weight compensation form B-0715 states "Applicant Li, object store M-12 order 3301, application date 2025-07-15, status is pending approval". The draft sentence to be judged is: "This batch has completed quality-inspection review, the compensation form has been approved, and handover may proceed." This sentence touches three distinct facts: inspection pending review, compensation form pending approval, and handover execution. Pending approval does not demonstrate that operating permission is absent, and pending review does not constitute a completed review.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation check items relevant to this feature and this primary task, using the sample above. The values are hypothetical starting points for this paper comparison and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node required fields | Object store, order number, shift date | The sample contains M-12 and 3301; required fields must cover the subject and object needed for judgement |
| User selection node branches | Review-passed branch, pending-review branch | The sample inspection conclusion is pending review; branch connections and the selected result must be checked |
| Interaction state check | Record state and wait for submission | Compare with sample material date 2025-07-15 to confirm no automatic advance during the wait |
| Output hand-off check | Pass collected information to a later judgement node | Compare output fields item by item against order number, store and status in the sample text |
| External action division | Order writes and status synchronisation connect to a separate interface | The sample compensation form is pending approval; handover execution needs an independent authorisation source |
| Retrieval scope check | Verify identifiers and exclude cross-model libraries | Compare against sample material fields to confirm retrieval results do not act as authorisation evidence |
Three common errors
- Treating pending approval as approved. In the sample, compensation form B-0715 has status pending approval, and the draft sentence says the compensation form has been approved. Same subject, same period, same field, mutually exclusive values. This is a contradiction.
- Treating pending review as a completed review. Quality-inspection record Q-0715 has conclusion pending review, and the draft sentence says quality-inspection review has been completed. This is unsupported by the evidence, and it cannot be described as a negation or a conflict.
- Treating retrieval or form submission as authorised execution. The form input node collects information and passes it to later nodes; the user selection node executes a branch. Neither writes orders, backfills documents or synchronises external status. Handover execution in the sample requires a separate business interface or downstream process.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the draft sentence, compare the compensation form status field "pending approval" with the draft phrase "has been approved", and observe whether the check identifies the same field with mutually exclusive values and judges it a contradiction. Expected result: contradiction; not actually tested.
- Input quality-inspection record Q-0715 and the draft phrase "has completed quality-inspection review", compare the conclusion field "pending review" with "completed", and observe whether the check judges the claim unsupported and preserves the evidence gap. Expected result: pending verification; not actually tested.
- Input sample order number 3301 and store M-12, compare the form required fields with the output fields of the later judgement node, and observe whether outputs correspond item by item to inputs. If a field is missing or a cross-model library identifier does not match, record it as a check-failure branch. For empty-result hand-off, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns empty.