The template I'm using for this Quick Fields doc class allows multiple values for "Crew_Code" and "EE_Number". After scanning, the document shows values for each record in the metadata. But, after storing to the repository, the values in all but the first Crew_Code field are gone. Please advise.
Question
Question
Quick Fields shows multiple records for metadata, but it's missing after storing to repository
Answer
Hi,
After reviewing the document layout, we noticed that each page contains a single Crew value along with multiple employee numbers.
Based on the document structure and our testing, we have identified two possible approaches to address the issue with Crew Code not being populated across all rows.
- Adjust template structure
Instead of storing Crew Code and Employee Numbers inside a field group, we recommend restructuring the template as follows:- Crew Code → stored as a single-value field
- Employee Numbers → stored as a multi-value field (optionally displayed as a table in the metadata pane)
-
It is also possible to keep the current group structure and use Assign Token Value to manually duplicate the Crew Code so that it matches the number of Employee Numbers.
However, the limitations are requires manually repeating the Crew Code for each row and becomes difficult to manage when there are many employee numbers.
We recommend Option 1 as the preferred solution due to its simplicity and reliability.
Replies
Hi,
Thanks for the details and screenshots — that helps a lot. To further narrow down why only the first Crew_Code value is retained after storing, could you please help confirm a few items?
1. Template configuration: Could you share a screenshot of the template structure?
2. Quick Fields configuration: How are Crew_Code and EE_Number mapped (e.g., Zone OCR...)?
This information will help us determine whether the issue is related to:
- field group configuration in the template, or
- how the repeating values are being mapped and written from Quick Fields
Thank you so much.
Hi,
Here are screen shots of the template:
The repeating values are mapped in Quick Fields by the use of token collector and retriever tasks.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for the additional details — I was able to reproduce the behavior locally using a simplified setup similar to yours.
My test scenario:
- Using Pattern Matching
- Extracted Crew_Code (e.g., YAT2)
- Extracted EE_Number (e.g., 123, 456, 789)
- Input image
- Fields in repository
This occurs because token-based extraction does not preserve row relationships.
Although Quick Fields displays them as repeating rows, internally it stores them as separate value lists :Crew_Code = [YAT2] EE_Number = [123, 456, 789]. This might be an unexpected behavior. We will consider creating a tracking task/bug.
Potential workaround:
- Ensure Crew_Code is repeated for each row so both fields have the same number of values. I test with this image, and store all the values
To make sure our findings match your actual setup, could you please confirm:
- In your source document, is Crew_Code only present once, while EE_Number appears multiple times?
This will help confirm whether the behavior is due to the same pattern demonstrated above.
Hi,
I will upload a sample PDF. The first two pages are the Weekly Topic, and the following pages are crew rosters for that week's topic. Each crew roster has one crew name, and multiple employee numbers.
Hi,
After reviewing the document layout, we noticed that each page contains a single Crew value along with multiple employee numbers.
Based on the document structure and our testing, we have identified two possible approaches to address the issue with Crew Code not being populated across all rows.
- Adjust template structure
Instead of storing Crew Code and Employee Numbers inside a field group, we recommend restructuring the template as follows:- Crew Code → stored as a single-value field
- Employee Numbers → stored as a multi-value field (optionally displayed as a table in the metadata pane)
-
It is also possible to keep the current group structure and use Assign Token Value to manually duplicate the Crew Code so that it matches the number of Employee Numbers.
However, the limitations are requires manually repeating the Crew Code for each row and becomes difficult to manage when there are many employee numbers.
We recommend Option 1 as the preferred solution due to its simplicity and reliability.
Got it - thank you.