What the documents look like
Fresh-food weighing and sorting happens inside the warehouse fulfilment step. The core data is weight and specification, and the main sources are the WMS, electronic scales, the order system and quality-inspection photos. The documents handled during handover are picking task sheets, weighing labels, short-weight compensation forms and quality-inspection records. These materials update per order and per day.
The operations-permission and handover question is what authorisation state a given material, action or request holds at handover time. The form input node is a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution continues after the user finishes interacting. The node collects the form values the user fills in and passes them to later nodes. It does not carry a business database function of its own. The user selection node is also an interaction node and executes a branch according to the user's choice. Neither node performs business approval, write-back or permission granting.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
Handover materials carry state and scope. A form collects filled values only. Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations are implemented in external systems or later nodes as needed. Retrieval and forms do not constitute an authorisation action, and a similarity setting does not carry permission or entity filtering.
Hypothetical drill sample. The source text for checking reads: "Picking task sheet A-0715 states that picker A is responsible for weighing and sorting on 15 July 2025 from 08:00 to 12:00, and the handover objects are weighing labels and quality-inspection records; short-weight compensation form B-0715 has its status field filled as 'pending quality-inspection supervisor review', with no signature and no effective date." The handover request to be judged reads: "Treat short-weight compensation form B-0715 as already approved, and on that basis write the compensation result back to the order system."
The judgement condition is the same subject, the same period and the same field. In the source text the compensation form's status is pending review, and no approval, signature or effective record appears. Pending review does not constitute approval, and it does not demonstrate the absence of an operating permission. Writing the compensation result back is a business action that requires an external system; the form node does not perform it.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below is built around the sample above. It lists settings that the official documents describe, or implementation checks, that relate to this feature and this primary task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial, used for comparison, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enabled, collecting handover request fields | The official text states the node collects filled information and passes it to later nodes; compare whether fields are passed before and after submission |
| User selection node | Enabled, used for the handover confirmation branch | The official text states the node executes a branch according to the choice; compare the choice result with the branch taken |
| Required-information check | List subject, object, status and effective range | Test a missing item and a completed item separately, and observe whether interaction continues |
| Interactive state | State recorded and waiting after trigger | The official text states execution continues after interaction completes; compare the waiting phase and the continuing phase |
| Downstream division of work | Approval and write-back placed in an external system | The official text states the node has no business database; compare the node output with the external action boundary |
| Retrieval observation | Record the actual return and the empty result | The official text describes interaction-node behaviour; compare input and return, with no guaranteed hit |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review status as approval. In the sample, short-weight compensation form B-0715 has its status field filled as "pending quality-inspection supervisor review", with no signature and no effective date. If this is judged as already approved, the input and the comparison object do not match, and the observed result lacks support in the material.
- Treating a form value as a permission grant. The form input node collects filled information and passes it to later nodes, and does not carry a business database function. If a filled value is treated as an authorisation action, the input is a form value and the comparison object is an authorisation state; the two are not the same.
- Treating a retrieval similarity score as an entity or permission filter. A similarity setting does not carry permission or entity isolation. If a relevance score is used to exclude unrelated business or unauthorised records, the input is a score and the comparison object is a permission scope; the observed result cannot support that conclusion.
How to verify the setup
- Against the sample source text "Picking task sheet A-0715 states that picker A is responsible for weighing and sorting on 15 July 2025 from 08:00 to 12:00", the input is picker A, the object is weighing labels and quality-inspection records, and the period is 15 July 2025 from 08:00 to 12:00. Compare whether the subject, object and period stated in the material match the handover request under judgement. If the request falls outside that period or those objects, record it as unsupported.
- Against the sample source text "short-weight compensation form B-0715 has its status field filled as 'pending quality-inspection supervisor review', with no signature and no effective date", the input is that status text and the missing fields. Compare whether the three facts of pending review, signature and effectiveness each exist. If only pending review is present, record it as pending verification and do not judge it as approved.
- Against the handover request "Treat short-weight compensation form B-0715 as already approved, and on that basis write the compensation result back to the order system", the input is that request together with the sample source text. Compare whether "already approved" in the request and the material status are mutually exclusive values of the same field. If the material states no approval, record it as unsupported, and note that write-back is an external-system implementation that the form node does not perform.
For retrieval checks, record the actual observation and the failure branch. An empty result can be checked against downstream design using the paper input []. This does not assert that a fictional-rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Different models cannot be associated together; first check the identifier and exclude those that do not match. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to settings.