What the documents look like
Price and display audits happen during ordinary trading, so the emphasis sits on whether standards keep being met rather than on launch training. The material set for this category includes supervision system records, POS price lists, store camera material, and head office promotion calendars. Day-to-day documents are store visit photographs, price tag lists, display standards, and rectification notices, with updates on a weekly or monthly rhythm.
Three states need separating during operations handover. A workflow state recorded by a node, a value collected through a form, and a business action that an external system has not yet completed are different things. The form input node triggers an interaction state, records the workflow state, waits for the user to finish, and then passes the collected values to later nodes. The user selection node executes a branch according to the user's choice. Neither node carries business database functions, so field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations belong to external systems or later nodes. Retrieval and form collection do not amount to authorized execution.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The form input node collects entered information and passes it downstream after submission. The user selection node branches on a choice and does not act as a personnel directory or business data selector. The interaction state records the workflow state and waits; execution continues once the interaction completes. The following is a hypothetical drill sample used to show how checking works, and it does not indicate that any real business action occurred.
Hypothetical drill sample. Source text one, price tag list excerpt: "Store number S-017, inspection date 12 March 2025, item A marked at 9.9 yuan, POS price list for the same date records 9.9 yuan." Source text two, rectification notice excerpt: "Store number S-017, rectification item is end-cap display tier count, required completion by 20 March 2025, status pending store confirmation." Draft sentence to be judged: "Store S-017 price tag and POS agree, the display rectification is closed, and operations authority has been handed over to the regional supervisor."
Check points: source one supports agreement between price tag and POS for the same subject, same date, and same field. Source two shows only a rectification requirement and a pending-confirmation status, with no record of completion, acceptance, or authority handover. The closing and handover claims in the second half of the draft have no corresponding record and remain unsupported. A form node can collect store number, inspection date, price tag price, and rectification status, but those entered values do not change the authorization state of the material and produce no approval or write-back effect.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers documented settings or implementation check items tied to this page's sample. The values are hypothetical starting points for this drill and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enabled, collecting store number, inspection date, price tag price | Node documentation states entered information is collected and passed downstream; compare with the disabled case to see whether the dialogue enters the interaction state |
| Required field scope | Store number, inspection date, price tag price, rectification status | Compare item by item against the fields the sample material needs, and observe whether the interaction waits when a field is absent |
| User selection node | Enabled, branches for "material complete" and "material pending" | Documentation states a branch runs on the choice; compare the downstream path with a form input only setup that does not branch |
| Rectification status values | Pending store confirmation, completed, pending verification | Compare against the wording "pending store confirmation" in source two and observe whether "completed" has any corresponding record |
| Post-interaction handling | Form values passed to later nodes; approval and write-back implemented separately | Documentation states the node has no built-in business database function; compare with assuming approval is already complete |
| Retrieval scope check | Verify target knowledge base identifier and vector model identifier | Knowledge bases on different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first and exclude those that do not match |
Three common errors
- Treating a collected form value of "rectification status is pending store confirmation" as a completed rectification. The input is the source two wording, the comparison is between "completed" and "pending store confirmation", and the observable result is that the two values are mutually exclusive while source two supports neither completion nor closure.
- Treating the branch result of the user selection node as completed handover of operations authority. The input is the hypothetical draft sentence, the comparison is between branch execution and a handover record, and the observable result is that the material contains no handover subject, time, or signed receipt, so the claim remains unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval hit or form submission as authorized execution. The input is the form value and the retrieval return item, the comparison is against approval records and write-back records, and the observable result is that neither has a corresponding record, so the business action requires a separate system implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Use source text one. Enter store number S-017, inspection date 12 March 2025, price tag price 9.9 yuan, and POS price 9.9 yuan. Compare the two price values for the same subject, same date, and same field. The condition is met when the two agree and the draft sentence stops at price agreement, without extending to rectification closure or authority handover.
- Use source text two. Enter the rectification item of end-cap display tier count, the required date of 20 March 2025, and the status pending store confirmation. Compare "pending store confirmation" against "completed" and "accepted". The condition is met when the status is recorded as pending confirmation and the draft does not state completion or closure; confirming completion requires an acceptance record, and its absence is recorded as a gap.
- Use the hypothetical draft sentence. Enter the full sentence and compare each assertion against the corresponding fields in source one and source two. The condition is met when price agreement has support from source one, while rectification closure and authority handover have no material support and are marked unsupported; form interaction waiting and state recording follow the node documentation, without inferring submission counts, automatic judgment, or snapshot guarantees.