What the documents look like
Store count and loss-control handover in supermarkets and convenience stores revolves around four document families: count sheets, variance analyses, damage write-off approvals, and monitoring access records. The operational data behind them comes from POS inventory, WMS, monitoring systems, and the SB/T count specification, with monthly or quarterly update cycles. This category differs from supplier entry settlement because it tracks book-to-physical differences and shrinkage; supplier payables sit outside its scope.
For the interactive forms step, the practical question is narrower than the document list suggests. Handover involves materials, actions, and requests that each sit at a particular authorization state. A count sheet may be drafted, submitted, or reviewed. A write-off request may be pending review or approved. A monitoring access record may be requested or granted. The forms layer collects what a person types or selects; it does not decide whether the underlying business action is permitted. That distinction drives everything below.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
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 completes the interaction. The node collects the information the user fills in and passes it to later nodes. It does not carry a business database function of its own.
The user selection node is also a user-interaction node with the same interactive-state behavior. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. It is not a personnel directory and not a business-data selector.
Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations need to be implemented in an external system or in later nodes. A submitted form is a collected value, not an authorization. A pending request is not an approval. An offered option is not an execution.
Hypothetical paper test case. A store loss-prevention department submits a damage write-off handover record. The source text reads: "March 2025 count variance SKU-A, quantity -12 units, cause under investigation, applicant: loss prevention department A, approval status is pending review." The draft sentence under evaluation reads: "This write-off request has been approved and the inventory adjustment may be executed." The comparison point is same subject, same period, same field: "pending review" and "approved" are mutually exclusive values for the approval-status field, so the draft sentence conflicts with the source text. No real customer, company, or identity number is involved.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented behavior | Triggers the interactive state, collects submitted information, passes it to later nodes |
| User selection node | Documented behavior | Evaluates the user's choice and executes the "yes" branch |
| Interactive state | Documented behavior | Workflow state is recorded while waiting; execution continues after interaction completes |
| Required-field check | Implementation check | List the fields this task cannot omit; test the behavior when a field is missing and when it is supplied |
| Approval-status field | Implementation check | Record values such as pending review and approved, and compare against the business system's approval result |
| Downstream handling split | Implementation check | Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations are implemented in an external system or later nodes |
The hypothetical trial starting point for this page is "pending review" as the initial approval-status value. It is chosen because the sample source text carries that value, and it is compared against "approved." This is a trial starting point, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as business authorization. The form input node only collects information and passes it to later nodes; approval requires an external system. Input: a handover record whose approval status is "pending review." Comparison object: the approval-result field. Observable result: whether the two values agree. A pending review status does not by itself show that the operator lacks permission to act.
- Treating the user selection node as a personnel directory or permission filter. The node executes a branch based on the user's choice; it does not perform entity isolation or permission determination. Input: the branch options presented. Comparison object: the path the later nodes actually execute. Observable result: whether the branch direction matches the design.
- Treating a retrieval relevance score as a permission or entity filter. A similarity setting does not exclude unrelated business records or unauthorized records. Input: a retrieval query. Comparison object: the returned records against the authorized scope. Observable result: whether unauthorized records appear. Retrieval is not authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Use the hypothetical sample source text "March 2025 count variance SKU-A, quantity -12 units, cause under investigation, applicant: loss prevention department A, approval status is pending review," and input the draft sentence "This write-off request has been approved and the inventory adjustment may be executed." Compare the two field values "pending review" and "approved." If the draft sentence conflicts with the source text, the draft sentence is judged unsupported. This is a paper comparison; no test has been run.
- Use the hypothetical sample field "approval status is pending review," and input the downstream node request "execute inventory adjustment." Compare the approval status with the operation request. If the status is pending review while the request is to execute the adjustment, the authorization boundary is not satisfied and the request must wait for approval to complete. A pending request is not an approval.
- Use the hypothetical sample field "cause under investigation," and input a variance-analysis request. Compare the cause field with the variance conclusion. If the cause is not stated, record this as an evidence gap; do not judge it as a denial or a conflict. Missing evidence remains missing.
Across all three checks, the judgment rule is same subject, same period, same field. Only explicitly mutually exclusive values in the same field count as a conflict. A field that is unstated, or evidence that covers only a related stage, is unsupported or awaiting verification. Signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts, and a quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period. Authorization or effectiveness clauses must not be supplied to force a definite answer; the evidence gap stays open. Materials needed for verification must sit within an accessible target retrieval scope or a clearly stated manual input; when absent, record the gap.