What the documents look like
Opening coaching transfers operating capability. It differs from franchise registration management, which handles legal filing and disclosure. The material for this category comes from training systems, supervisor applications, store photographs, and the headquarters SOP library. The everyday documents are training sign-in sheets, opening checklists, SOP manuals, and assessment scores.
Copy drafting for goods and marketing must judge whether a proposed sentence is supported by these materials. A training sign-in sheet records the participating subject, the course, and the date. An opening checklist records store materials and the status of actions. An assessment score records a score and the assessed item. Expressions such as "completed training" or "passed the opening inspection" must be compared item by item against the subject, object, status, and valid scope in the corresponding document. A field not stated in a document is unknown and cannot be inferred from an adjacent field.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node belongs to the user interaction nodes. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and the conversation continues downward after the user completes the interaction. The node collects required information the user fills in and, after submission, passes that information to subsequent nodes. The user selection node also enters an interaction state when triggered and records the workflow state. When the user makes a choice, the node judges that choice and executes the corresponding branch.
A copy drafting workflow can first use form input to collect the proposed sentence under review and the material references, then use user selection to confirm whether to enter the comparison branch. Retrieval results do not carry authorization decisions, and a relevance score is not an entity or permission filter. Collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and output must be compared item by item against input. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process; the nodes themselves do not perform these business actions.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: Material text one, "In March 2025, franchisee Wang of the East China region attended cashier course training; the sign-in sheet records the date as 10 March 2025." Material text two, "The opening checklist for the same store states that on 12 March 2025 the material display was qualified." Proposed sentence under review, "Wang completed all training and passed the opening inspection in March 2025." The comparison shows that the sign-in sheet covers only the cashier course and does not state "all training"; the opening checklist states that the material display was qualified and does not state the overall conclusion "passed the opening inspection." The proposed sentence is unsupported at "all" and at "passed the opening inspection," and remains pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check item on this page | Basis and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect the proposed sentence, material references, subject, and date fields | Enters interaction state on trigger; passes information to later nodes after submission |
| User selection node | Set two branches, "enter comparison" and "hold" | Executes the corresponding branch after the user makes a choice |
| Interaction state check | Check waiting, state recording, and dialog hiding behavior | Follows the documented explanation; no separate global switch is set |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information to the comparison or retrieval node | Compare output against input item by item |
| External action division | Final copy writing and external synchronization connect to a separate interface | The nodes do not perform writing or synchronization |
| Retrieval scope check | Check the vector model identifier first and exclude non-matching ones | Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together |
Three common errors
- Writing "completed all training" when the sign-in sheet covers a single course. The input is the sign-in sheet text, the comparison object is the scope "all training," and the observable result is that the text does not state that scope, so the claim is unsupported.
- Writing "passed the opening inspection" when the opening checklist states "material display qualified." The input is the checklist text, the comparison object is the overall inspection conclusion, and the observable result is that the text states only a single qualified item.
- Treating a relevance score as a permission filter and concluding that a low score excludes unauthorized records. The input is the returned score and record, the comparison object is the permission field, and the observable result is that the score contains no permission information, so authorization must be checked separately.
How to verify the setup
- Use hypothetical material text one and the proposed sentence "completed all training" as input. Compare the course scope in the sign-in sheet against the word "all." If the text does not state all courses, the claim is unsupported.
- Use hypothetical material text two and the proposed sentence "passed the opening inspection" as input. Compare the fields stated in the checklist against the overall conclusion. If the text states only that the material display was qualified, the claim remains pending verification.
- Use the paper input [] to check the downstream design. Observe whether the downstream node handles the empty-result branch; do not claim that retrieval necessarily returns an empty array. If a non-empty result is returned, record the actual observation and check the source identifier.