What the documents look like
The handover chain in this category runs through four document families: replenishment plans, inbound warehouse appointments, inventory age schedules, and last-mile delivery notes. A third-party overseas warehouse can serve several sales channels, and the seller allocates stock across those channels, so one pool of inventory may sit behind replenishment requests from more than one channel. The stated data sources are the overseas warehouse WMS, ERP sales forecasts, freight forwarder systems, and carrier bills. The stated update frequency is weekly or daily; where that frequency does not affect the routing step, it can be left aside.
What matters for handover is the status field on each document. A replenishment plan recorded as pending review, an inbound appointment recorded as pending confirmation, an age schedule recorded as checked, and a delivery note recorded as delivered each describe a different fact. These statuses cannot stand in for one another, and a later stage in one document does not advance the stage of another.
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 execution continues 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 is also a user interaction node: it enters the interaction state, records the workflow state, and after the user makes a choice it evaluates that choice and runs the corresponding branch. The documented basic use is to pose a question that requires a decision and route the workflow according to the feedback.
Both nodes collect values and route branches. Retrieved results, submitted form values, and similarity scores do not constitute authorization. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. At handover, the authorization state of a document has to be checked by a person; an interaction node cannot treat pending review as approved.
Hypothetical paper exercise. An overseas warehouse operations role records the following in a handover list: replenishment plan RP-0714, object German warehouse SKU-A, status pending review, submission date 14 July 2025, quantity 600 units; inbound appointment AP-0715, object German warehouse, status pending confirmation, appointment date 18 July 2025; inventory age schedule AG-0716, object German warehouse SKU-A, status checked, check date 16 July 2025. The proposed handover request to be judged is: "mark RP-0714 as approved and trigger execution of inbound appointment AP-0715." Compared with the source text above, RP-0714 is pending review and AP-0715 is pending confirmation, and neither document records an approval or an execution. The request is not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Interaction node | Collects required fields and passes them to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Interaction node | Runs the corresponding branch after the user makes a choice |
| Interaction state recording | Node behavior | Triggering records the workflow state and waits for completion before continuing |
| Output handoff check | Implementation check | Compare collected information item by item against the inputs of later nodes |
| External operation split | Implementation check | Writes, backfill, and synchronization connect to a separate business interface or later process |
| Hypothetical exercise starting point | Hypothetical for this page | Use the pending review status of RP-0714 in the sample as the checking starting point and compare it against the source status field |
The hypothetical exercise starting point is used only for the paper check on this page. It is not an official default value, and the reason for choosing it is that RP-0714 is the document the proposed request names first.
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as approved. The input is the status field of RP-0714, the comparison object is the source wording "pending review," and the observable result is that a draft sentence reading "approved" does not match the source.
- Treating pending confirmation as executed. The input is the appointment status field of AP-0715, the comparison object is the source wording "pending confirmation," and the observable result is that a handover request reading "execution triggered" goes beyond what the source records.
- Using a retrieval score in place of authorization. The input is a similarity score, the comparison object is the source status field, and the observable result is that the score has no correspondence to an authorization state.
How to verify the setup
- Take the sample source text and the proposed request. Compare the status field of RP-0714 against the words "approved" in the request. If the source reads "pending review" and the request reads "approved," the request is not supported. This describes an expected observation and does not report a completed test.
- Take the same sample source text and the proposed request. Compare the status field of AP-0715 against the word "execution." If the source reads "pending confirmation" and the request reads "executed," the request is not supported. This describes an expected observation and does not report a completed test.
- Take the paper input
[]and check the downstream design for how the later node handles a miss. Observe whether the downstream node treats the empty input as a miss. This page does not claim that a retrieval rule returns[]; the empty input is supplied on paper to check the downstream design. This describes an expected observation and does not report a completed test.
Where a document field is not provided, it remains unknown. An unsigned termination is not a completed termination, a pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not execution.