What the documents look like
Franchise supervision copy drafting draws on four document types: store visit forms, franchise agreements, rectification notices, and display standards. These materials are produced by headquarters, regional supervisors, and franchise owners at different points in time. Their formats vary, and their update rhythm is mainly weekly and monthly. When drafting copy, the model needs to confirm facts such as product names, display positions, promotion conditions, and rectification status from these materials, then organize them into sentences suitable for external use. Fields absent from the materials, such as whether a product has received headquarters approval for promotion or whether a rectification has passed re-inspection, are unsupported information that the model must not supply. The key difference from direct-operated convenience stores is that headquarters supervises franchisee execution of standards; the rights and obligations boundary in copy must match the original text of the agreement and rectification notice.
The four document types also differ in what they record. A store visit form records observations at a point in time, such as a price tag display value. A franchise agreement records the framework governing the relationship. A rectification notice records a requirement, a deadline, and a re-inspection status. Display standards record placement requirements. Copy drafting must keep these roles separate rather than merging them into a single assertion.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue is used during drafting to supplement materials step by step, ask about missing fields, and correct wording. The prompt needs to state the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence. The memory turns setting determines how many earlier rounds are carried in; too few rounds may fail to use product information already confirmed earlier, while too many rounds may bring in unrelated content. Question optimization handles reference resolution in continuous conversation; when an earlier round mentions a product and a later round uses a pronoun, the optimized question needs to be checked to confirm it still points to the same object. Model and length settings require checking whether the context length is sufficient to hold excerpts from the store visit form and display standards. The response format follows downstream needs; if downstream reads a fixed structure, select json_schema and fill in the corresponding format requirement, then check whether the returned structure matches.
Hypothetical paper test case: the following fictional materials are used for this paper check and come from no real store or agreement.
Store visit form excerpt (hypothetical, date range week 2 of March 2025): "Shelf area A displays the private-label mineral water 550ml, price tag shows 2 yuan. The March headquarters display standard requires this product on the second level of the end cap."
Franchise agreement excerpt (hypothetical, clause 7): "The franchise store uses promotional materials provided by headquarters; the content of materials is subject to headquarters' written notice for the current period."
Rectification notice excerpt (hypothetical, number ZG-2025-0312): "On 12 March, inspection found that the area A price tag did not match the system price; replacement required by 15 March. As of 14 March, the re-inspection record is empty."
Draft sentence to be assessed (hypothetical): "This store has completed rectification of the mineral water, the price matches headquarters standards, welcome to purchase."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this paper trial | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | Hypothetical starting value 4 rounds | Drafting usually involves material excerpt, follow-up, and correction, covering three exchanges; 4 rounds can cover them. Compare with 2 rounds and observe whether the earlier product name is still referenced |
| Response limit | Hypothetical starting value 800 tokens | A single copy draft is limited in length; 800 can hold one paragraph. Compare with 400 and observe whether truncation occurs |
| Temperature | Hypothetical starting value low | Copy involves agreement and rectification facts; low is more stable. Compare with high and observe whether wording not present in the materials appears |
| Response format | Hypothetical starting value default | The current downstream is human reading, so no fixed structure is needed. If changed to json_schema, fill in the format requirement and check returned fields |
| Multimodal recognition | Hypothetical starting value off | The sample materials are text with no image input. If the store visit form contains photos, check whether the model supports image recognition |
| Question optimization | Hypothetical starting value on | Multi-turn follow-ups contain references; check whether the optimized question still points to the same product. Compare with off and observe whether references are misparsed |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this paper trial and do not represent official defaults.
Three common errors
- Reading "re-inspection record is empty" in the rectification notice as "rectification completed." Input is the rectification notice original text and the re-inspection record field. The comparison object is the required completion date against the re-inspection status. The observable result is that the re-inspection record remains empty, and the phrase "completed rectification" in the draft sentence is unsupported by the materials.
- Expanding "material content is subject to headquarters' written notice for the current period" in the franchise agreement into "headquarters has approved this copy." Input is clause 7 of the agreement and the draft sentence. The comparison object is whether the agreement records approval of this specific copy. The observable result is that the agreement only governs the source of materials and does not record approval status for this sentence, which remains unsupported.
- Treating "price tag shows 2 yuan" in the store visit form as directly consistent with the system price. Input is the store visit form excerpt and the price inconsistency record in the rectification notice. The comparison object is the same product, the same period, and the same price field. The observable result is that the store visit form records only the price tag display value and does not record the system price, so consistency cannot be determined and remains pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input the store visit form excerpt, franchise agreement excerpt, rectification notice excerpt, and draft sentence from the hypothetical sample above. Compare "completed rectification" in the draft sentence against the re-inspection record field in the rectification notice. The observable result is that when the re-inspection record is empty, this statement in the draft sentence is unsupported by the materials and should remain pending verification.
- Input clause 7 of the franchise agreement and the draft sentence. Compare whether the agreement records approval of this specific copy. The observable result is that when the agreement does not record it, the approval status in the draft sentence is unsupported and must not be supplied by the model.
- Input the store visit form excerpt and the price inconsistency record in the rectification notice. Compare the same product, the same period, and the same price field. The observable result is that when the store visit form records only the price tag display value and does not record the system price, the consistency judgment remains pending verification and must not be written directly as consistent.