What the documents look like
Franchise fee and deposit settlement handles money and breach-related deductions. It does not handle government filing. The working materials are franchise fee invoices, deposit ledgers, deduction notices and contractual payment schedules. These come from finance systems, franchise contracts, bank statements and store violation records. When something goes wrong, the consequences are fund disputes, franchise litigation and deposit refund disputes.
In order fulfillment and after-sales question handling, a franchisee asks why a deduction was made, when a payment is due, or how far an invoice has progressed. Conversation logs and audit work must tie each question's input, run detail and returned content to one specific conversation, so that sessions from different entry points are not counted together. The existence of a log only shows that a record was saved. Reconciliation, retention and compliance audit requirements are handled by a complete business solution separately.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity is distinguished by chatId. When chatId is a non-empty string, the system takes the conversation from the database and uses the last element of the messages array as the user question; the remaining messages are ignored. responseChatItemId must be unique under the current chatId. Run detail requires detail to be set per the official contract; in non-stream mode the intermediate results are held in responseData, and in stream mode they are distinguished through event. Test mode and production calls may use different identity fields, so input, history and returned content need separate checking.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a franchisee raises a question about one deduction. The source material for checking reads: "The deduction notice states that the deduction reason is a store violation, that the deduction amount corresponds to installment 3 of the contractual payment schedule, and that the notice is dated March 5." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This deduction has been confirmed by finance and deducted from the deposit ledger." The material states only the deduction reason, the amount correspondence and the notice date. It does not state finance confirmation or ledger deduction status. The draft sentence is unsupported and the evidence gap must be recorded.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check item | Input | Comparison and observation |
|---|---|---|
| Conversation identity | chatId in the request and the conversation identifier in the business record | Both point to the same conversation; sessions from different entry points are counted separately |
| Run detail | responseData after detail is set to true | Check whether the module response fields correspond to this question |
| Response message identifier | responseChatItemId | Unique under the current chatId; when duplicated, record the actual return |
| Feedback record | userGoodFeedback or userBadFeedback | Corresponds to dataId; the parameter is omitted when cancelling |
| Conversation list | offset, pageSize, loadCustomFeedbacks | Read records by page and check whether custom feedback is read |
| Authorization boundary | authProxy enabled state and proxy identity permission | The proxy identity still needs permission for the target application and conversation |
The values in this table have no documented defaults. They are starting points for this hypothetical check. The reason for choosing them is that they cover the checking scope of a single question, and the comparison object is the actual request and returned fields.
Three common errors
- Treating the conversation retrieval under a non-empty chatId as complete context. The system uses only the last element of messages as the user question and ignores the rest, so the check must confirm the source of the input and the history.
- Treating the existence of a log as completed compliance audit. Reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements are handled separately; a log record does not carry that duty.
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorized execution. A form collects values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their stated downstream implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the deduction notice source text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample, and compare whether the draft sentence contains finance confirmation or ledger deduction wording that the material does not state. Its appearance is the condition for judging the sentence unsupported.
- Input a duplicated responseChatItemId under the same chatId, compare the actual returned content, and confirm whether a phenomenon inconsistent with the uniqueness requirement appears.
- Input a request with detail=true, compare the module response in responseData with this question, and confirm whether the run detail can be located to this conversation. All of the above are paper checks and were not actually executed.