What the documents look like
Chain-store site selection happens before a store opens. The work centres on lease negotiation and engineering delivery, which places it in a different stage from post-opening store supervision. The materials handled at this step include a site evaluation form, a lease letter of intent, a renovation budget and an opening schedule. Sources behind these materials include trade-area footfall, map POIs, POS data on historical store formats and landlord documents. Each store generates its own set, updates arrive irregularly, and one handover package can therefore hold items dated to different points in time.
The form and interaction step collects fields from these materials and passes them to later nodes, while recording who submitted what and within which scope. Update frequency does not change what this page covers, so no synchronisation mechanism is described here.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
When the form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits until the user completes the interaction before continuing. After submission the node collects the entered form information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The node collects; it does not carry its own business database function. The user selection node also enters the interaction state and executes a branch according to the user's choice. Its role is to pose a decision question and route the flow; it is not a staff directory or a business-data selector.
What the form and interaction step can therefore carry is field collection and routing. Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations need an external system or later nodes. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorised execution: a record being retrieved does not mean the subject has the right to act on it, and a form being submitted does not mean approval has passed.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Source text one: a chain headquarters development department issued a site evaluation form in March 2024 to a regional development role, covering a candidate unit in the north of the city; the rent-to-sales ratio calculation field is blank and the footfall data field is filled in. Source text two: the lease letter of intent in the same package records a deadline of 15 April 2024 for paying the intent deposit, the signature field is blank, and no landlord seal appears. Draft sentence to be judged: the regional development role has obtained headquarters authorisation to sign this letter of intent on behalf of headquarters and to pay the intent deposit. That draft sentence covers two actions, signing and payment. The source text states no authorisation clause and shows neither action as completed.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below relates to the exercise above and lists documented settings or implementation checks tied to this feature and the primary task. Any value is a starting point for this hypothetical exercise, used for comparison against the sample, and is not an official default.
| Configuration item | Property | Check method for this exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented | After triggering, enters the interaction state and records workflow state; on submission passes information to later nodes |
| Required-field setting | Documented | The rent-to-sales ratio field in the sample is blank; check whether completion is required before submission |
| User selection node | Documented | Executes a branch according to the choice; used for routing, not for determining staff authority |
| Authorisation status field | Implementation check | Check whether the sample states authorising subject, object and valid scope; if absent, record the gap |
| Handover material list | Implementation check | Check item by item whether the site evaluation form, lease letter of intent, renovation budget and opening schedule are present |
| Downstream handling split | Implementation check | Field validation, approval, write-back and batch operations are implemented by an external system or later nodes |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorisation. The site evaluation form in the sample can be retrieved. Judging from that retrieval that the regional development role holds signing rights treats a retrieval result as a source of permission. Retrieval does not handle permission or entity isolation, and a relevance score is not a permission filter.
- Treating form submission as completed approval. The signature field on the letter of intent in the sample is blank. A draft sentence stating that authorisation has taken effect writes a pending or unsigned state as approved. Pending review does not demonstrate an absence of operating authority, and signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts.
- Treating the intent deposit deadline as a supply or performance deadline. The date 15 April 2024 in the sample is only the deadline for paying the intent deposit. Inferring from it that the delivery schedule is fixed misreads across fields. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period, and anything not stated should remain open for verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input source text one and source text two from the sample, and compare whether the authorisation described in the draft sentence matches the source text in subject, period and field. The source text states no authorisation clause, so the authorisation conclusion in the draft sentence is unsupported; the conclusion holds only when the source text contains an explicit authorising subject, object and valid scope.
- Input the blank rent-to-sales ratio field from the sample and compare whether completion is required before submission. If the required-field setting demands completion, a submission with the blank field should be stopped; if submission still completes, record that the field is unsupported and do not infer a failure cause.
- Input the blank signature state of the letter of intent from the sample and compare whether the draft sentence writes it as signed or effective. A blank signature field corresponds to unsigned; signing or effectiveness can be judged only when a seal or an explicit effectiveness record appears, and otherwise the evidence gap remains.
For empty-result downstream design, a clearly stated paper input of [] can be used to check the design, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first, exclude those that do not match, and record what is actually observed.