What the documents look like
Store count and loss-control work deals with book-to-physical variance and shrinkage. It does not handle supplier payables. The main data sources are POS inventory, WMS, monitoring systems, and the SB/T count specification. Typical documents are count sheets, variance analyses, damage write-off approvals, and monitoring review records. Data updates monthly or quarterly.
For workflow routing, these materials fall into three groups: count result records, variance investigation records, and write-off or monitoring review requests. Each group sits in a different authorization state at handover. A workflow node carries information forward and branches on a selection. Permission decisions and business execution require separate implementation.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
When the Form Input node triggers, the conversation enters an interactive state. The workflow state is recorded. The dialog is hidden. The node collects required information and, after submission, passes the collected values to subsequent nodes. When the User Selection node triggers, the conversation also enters an interactive state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user makes a choice, the node evaluates the choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. These are documented node behaviors. They do not establish a global state-recording switch, a submission-count limit, or an automatic judgment.
Retrieval results are not authorization. A relevance score does not separate stores, periods, or personnel permissions. An empty result can feed a downstream design, but it does not by itself establish a business rule. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching items excluded.
Hypothetical drill sample: A store's March 2025 count sheet records "Frozen zone A-12, book quantity 120 pieces, physical count 113 pieces, variance -7 pieces, counter: storekeeper Li, reviewer: loss-prevention specialist Wang." A variance analysis draft states "the variance for this SKU has been confirmed as caused by staff operating error; recommend direct write-off." A handover request states "please approve write-off of 7 pieces, approver: loss-prevention department Zhang." The materials do not state who holds write-off approval authority, and no monitoring review record is attached. The sentence to be assessed is "the variance has been confirmed as caused by staff operating error."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Explanation and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input required fields | Count sheet number, variance SKU, variance quantity | Set according to the actual fields on this count sheet; compare item by item against the count sheet text |
| User Selection branches | Two branches, yes and no | Per the User Selection document, verify each branch connection one by one |
| Output receiving node | Variance analysis or write-off approval node | Pass collected form information explicitly to the downstream node; compare input against output |
| Retrieval scope identifier | Store number and period | Check whether identifiers match; exclude non-matching items |
| Interactive state check | Enters interactive state after trigger | Check the documented state-recording behavior; do not add a separate switch |
| External operation split | Write-off persistence requires a separate interface | Collected form values do not equal a completed approval; downstream implementation is required |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval similarity as a permission filter. Input is a variance analysis draft query. The comparison object is the store number and period identifier. The observable result is whether retrieval returns records from another store or period. A relevance score does not perform entity isolation.
- Treating form submission as completed approval. Input is the write-off approval request in the handover request. The comparison object is the approval authority clause and the signature state. The observable result is whether the material states the approver's authority and the approval outcome. A pending review is not an approved write-off.
- Treating a User Selection branch as automatic judgment. Input is the draft sentence "confirmed as caused by staff operating error." The comparison object is the monitoring review record and the variance analysis text. The observable result is whether the material provides direct evidence of operating error. An unstated evidence item remains unverified.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: Input the count sheet text and the variance analysis draft from the hypothetical sample. Compare the draft sentence "the variance for this SKU has been confirmed as caused by staff operating error" against the count sheet. The count sheet records only variance quantity and personnel; it does not state a cause. Expected result: the sentence is unsupported and requires a monitoring review record or variance investigation record.
- Verification two: Input the handover request "please approve write-off of 7 pieces, approver: loss-prevention department Zhang." Compare whether the materials state the write-off approval authority and the approval outcome. The materials state no authority clause and show no completed approval. Expected result: approval status is pending verification and cannot be treated as approved.
- Verification three: Input the empty-result receiving scenario, using an explicit paper input of [] to check the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream node handles the empty result explicitly. Expected result: the downstream design must state the branch direction for an empty result. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty result.