What the documents look like
Franchise supervision differs from direct-operated fresh food ordering because headquarters monitors whether franchisees follow standards. The records exchanged among regional supervisors, franchise owners, and headquarters directly affect the franchise relationship. This page covers four document types used in order fulfillment and after-sales question answering: store visit forms, franchise contracts, rectification notices, and display standards. These materials are revisited repeatedly when a question concerns a prior visit, a pending correction, or a contract term.
The brief records a weekly and monthly update frequency for this category. This page does not introduce any faster synchronization mechanism, and the multi-turn prompt setup described here is checked at that same cadence.
A store visit form may record a store number, a visit date, a missing temperature log, and a supervisor note that the owner will supply the record later. A rectification notice may record the same store number, the specific correction item, the notice date, and a deadline for submitting the missing material. A franchise contract may record a contract number, the signing parties, an expiry date, and a reference to an appendix for display standards. Each of these documents carries a distinct status, and none of them confirms that a correction was completed unless the document itself says so.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue carries earlier turns into the model. In supervision work this means a store number from a visit form, a deadline from a rectification notice, or a clause state from a franchise contract may be referenced again in a later turn. The prompt must state the document scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence, so the model does not write in business facts that the documents do not contain. The history record must be checked against the context actually carried in, and a new session must be distinguished from a continued session by its input.
Question optimization applies when knowledge-base continuous dialogue requires pronoun resolution and question expansion. Short questions do not automatically qualify. Model and length settings must be checked against the context and reply settings the selected model supports, and long documents combined with follow-up questions require separate testing. Reply format is chosen according to what downstream processing consumes. Selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirement and verifying the returned structure.
Hypothetical drill sample: A store visit form states "Store number A-017, visit on March 12, 2025, cold display cabinet temperature log missing, supervisor note: awaiting owner's supplementary entry." A rectification notice states "Store A-017, correction item: supplementary entry of cold display cabinet temperature log, notice date March 14, 2025, submission of supplementary material required before March 21." A franchise contract states "Contract number F-2024-088, parties: headquarters and the A-017 franchise owner, valid until August 31, 2026, display standards per Appendix 2." The draft sentence to be assessed is "The missing cold display cabinet temperature log issue at store A-017 was rectified and passed inspection before March 21." The subject of this draft sentence is store A-017 and headquarters, the object is the supplementary entry of the cold display cabinet temperature log, the state is rectification completed and inspected, and the effective scope is before March 21. None of the three materials records a submission or an inspection. The completed and inspected state in the draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below is checked against the sample above. It lists only settings documented in the official FastGPT v4.17.2 AI settings page or implementation checks tied to this page's documents. Memory turns, reply limit, temperature, Top_p, stop sequences, reply format, multimodal recognition, hidden AI output, and thinking configuration follow the documented descriptions. No undocumented default value is specified.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | Hypothetical starting point of 3 turns | The sample follow-up draws on three documents; 3 turns can cover them. Compare with 1 turn to see whether earlier context is dropped. |
| Reply limit | Hypothetical starting point of 800 tokens | The sample answer must cite three documents; 800 can hold them. Compare with 400 to see whether the reply is truncated. |
| Temperature | Hypothetical starting point of 0.2 | Supervision question answering is a rule-clear scenario; a lower value is more stable. Compare with 0.7 to see whether unsupported facts appear. |
| Reply format | Hypothetical retention of the default | The sample has no downstream process reading a fixed structure. Compare with json_schema to observe the returned structure difference. |
| Multimodal recognition | Hypothetical off | The sample materials are text, with no image, audio, or video. Compare with on to see whether unsupported types are sent. |
| Thinking configuration | Hypothetical selection of default | The sample question is not complex. Compare with no-thinking to see whether the reply is direct. |
Three common errors
- Treating "rectified and passed inspection" in the draft sentence as a fact that occurred. The input is the three document texts above plus the draft sentence. The comparison is whether the materials record a submission or an inspection. The observable result is that none of the three materials records either, so the state is unsupported.
- Treating "submission required before March 21" in the rectification notice as already submitted. The input is the rectification notice text. The comparison is whether the notice contains a submission record or an inspection record. The observable result is that the notice states only the required deadline and no submission fact, so that fact remains to be verified.
- Treating the contract validity date of August 31, 2026 as evidence that display standards per Appendix 2 were executed. The input is the franchise contract text. The comparison is whether the contract states the content of Appendix 2 or any execution record. The observable result is that the contract mentions Appendix 2 only and states no execution status, so that fact is unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three document texts above and the draft sentence. Compare whether the completed and inspected state in the draft sentence has a corresponding record in the materials. The observable result is that the materials do not record that state, so the draft sentence should be judged unsupported and no completion or inspection conclusion should be output.
- Input the rectification notice text and the follow-up question "Has store A-017 submitted its rectification?" Compare whether the notice contains a submission record. The observable result is that the notice states only the required deadline and no submission fact, so the answer should state that the fact remains to be verified and should not output a submitted conclusion.
- Input the franchise contract text and the follow-up question "Is store A-017 executing display standards per Appendix 2?" Compare whether the contract states the content of Appendix 2 or an execution record. The observable result is that the contract mentions Appendix 2 only and states no execution status, so the answer should state that the fact is unsupported and should not output an executed conclusion.
Retrieval is not authorization. A relevance score does not filter by category, entity, or permission. When the required material is not present in an accessible retrieval scope or an explicit manual input, the gap is recorded rather than filled in. A pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not an execution.