What the documents look like
Franchise filing work centres on the commercial franchise information management system, enterprise licences, store lists and contract ledgers. In order fulfilment and after-sales question handling, follow-up questions commonly concern contract clauses, operating manual steps, filing material status and the content of disclosure documents. These materials are updated irregularly, with some adjusted annually, so a multi-turn exchange has to distinguish a new session from a continued session and check which context is actually carried in. Contract numbers, filing status and store names in the materials are business facts, and the model should not supply them when supporting evidence is absent.
The distinctive difference from head-office site selection and store opening is that franchise filing handles legal disclosure and the commerce department system, and does not handle specific premises engineering. The typical practitioners are the franchisor head office, franchise legal staff and the commerce liaison. Errors can lead to an order to file, franchise contract disputes and administrative penalties.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Prompts need to state the material scope, the answering task and how to act when evidence is missing. For history, check the context actually carried in and distinguish the input of a new session from a continued session. Question optimisation is checked only for knowledge-base continuous conversation, covering referent resolution and question expansion, and short questions are not assumed to all qualify. For model and length, check the context and reply settings the model supports, and test long-document and follow-up combinations. Reply format is chosen according to downstream handling; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement is filled in and the returned structure is verified. The same-vector-model requirement for linked retrieval libraries applies only to knowledge-base association, and does not extend to the commerce website or other external systems. A relevance score does not carry permission or entity isolation, and retrieval does not constitute authorisation.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample is used below. Sample source text: "Party A is the franchisor, Party B is the franchisee, and the two parties signed the Franchise Contract on 1 March 2024, contract number TZ-2024-031, agreeing that Party B operates a brand store in Xihu District, Hangzhou. As of 31 December 2024, the contract is in performance and the filing status is filed." Draft sentence: "The franchisee has completed its 2024 information disclosure obligation." To be determined: the source text does not state the completion status of information disclosure, and the draft sentence lacks a basis.
Configuration and implementation checks
The following configuration centres on the hypothetical exercise sample. Values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory rounds | 3 rounds | Customer-service applications usually keep a small number of history rounds; compare follow-up coherence against 1 round and 6 rounds |
| Reply cap | Enabled, slider at mid position | After-sales answers need a fairly complete explanation; compare against the lowest setting for truncation |
| Temperature | Low | Rule-clear scenarios need stable answers; compare wording consistency against the default value |
| Reply format | Default | Ordinary customer-service Q&A keeps the default; change to json_schema only when downstream needs fixed fields |
| Hide AI output | Off | Users need to see the answer directly; compare output visibility against the enabled state |
| Thinking configuration | Default | Simple questions are answered directly; compare response differences against no-thinking |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval relevance score as a permission filter. Input: the user asks "TZ-2024-031 contract status"; comparison: the returned score against the user's accessible scope; observable result: a high score does not mean the user is entitled to view that contract, and authorisation must be checked separately.
- Treating a pending-review status as approved. Input: the draft sentence "the filing has passed"; comparison: the source text "filing status is filed" against a "pending review" field; observable result: pending review does not equal filed, and the draft sentence is not supported.
- Leaving the jsonschema format requirement empty. Input: reply format set to jsonschema; comparison: whether the format requirement field is filled in; observable result: when it is empty, the returned structure cannot be parsed as expected.
How to verify the setup
- Input: the hypothetical sample source text above together with the draft sentence "The franchisee has completed its 2024 information disclosure obligation"; comparison: whether the source text states the completion status of information disclosure; observable result: the source text does not state it, and the draft sentence should be marked as unsupported.
- Input: the hypothetical request "Please confirm whether contract TZ-2024-031 has been terminated"; comparison: whether "in performance" and "terminated" are mutually exclusive in the source text; observable result: mutually exclusive values in the same field form a contradiction, and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Input: a paper empty result []; comparison: whether the downstream node is designed to handle an empty reference; observable result: do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval certainly returns [], and check only the downstream design.
These checks test the named primary task of drafting and answering against supplied source wording and its limitations. They do not establish identity certification, report analysis or any other task, and they do not claim that a test, deployment, approval or refund took place. Where the source text does not state a fact, the gap remains open.