What the documents look like
Franchisee training and opening coaching transfers operating capability from the franchisor to the store. The materials that carry this transfer are training sign-in sheets, opening checklists, SOP manuals, and assessment scores. They record whether actions were completed and what state a store was in. They are not legal filing disclosures, and they do not function as a franchise registration record. Copy drafting for goods and marketing draws quotable statements out of these materials and turns them into external wording.
The material sources named for this category are the training system, the supervisor app, store photographs, and the headquarters SOP library. The stated update rhythm is per store, monthly. That rhythm does not change node behavior on this page; it matters only as background when a draft makes a timeliness claim.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits. The user fills in the required information and submits. After submission, the node collects what was entered and passes it to later nodes. The node collects entered content. It does not carry a business database function of its own.
The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. It enters the interaction state, records workflow state, and waits. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the corresponding branch. It is not a personnel directory and not a business data selector. Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations require an external system or a later node.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Three source sentences from the materials. First, a sign-in sheet for a franchise store, March 2025, states: "Cashier operation training, 4 participants, 4 sign-ins." Second, the opening checklist for the same store, March 2025, states: "Cashier area materials placement completed, inspector signed." Third, the assessment scores for the same store, March 2025, state: "Cashier operation assessment, 3 passed, 1 awaiting retake." The draft sentence to be judged is: "All personnel at this store have completed cashier training and all have passed the assessment." Judging requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The 4 sign-ins and 4 participants agree. The 3 passes do not agree with "all have passed." The 1 awaiting retake is an incomplete state. The draft sentence is not supported by the materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Use on this page and how to check it |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Interaction node | Collects store, period, material type, and the sentence to be quoted for the draft; passes them to later nodes after submission |
| Required-information check | Implementation check | Lists the fields this task cannot omit; tests the behavior with a missing field and after it is supplied |
| User Selection node | Interaction node | Poses the choice about whether to adopt the draft sentence; executes a branch according to the choice |
| Interaction state | Node behavior | Records workflow state and waits after triggering; continues downward execution after interaction completes |
| Downstream division of labor | Implementation check | Field validation, approval, write-back, and batch operations are implemented in an external system or a later node |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Hypothetical value | This exercise sets the required fields to store, period, material type, and sentence to be quoted; these four are chosen because judging needs the same subject, period, and field, and the result is compared against the missing-field test |
Three common errors
- Treating the sign-in count as the assessment pass count. The sign-in sheet records participation and sign-in; the assessment scores record passes and retakes. These are different fields. The check compares field by field: 3 passes does not agree with "all have passed," so the condition is not met.
- Treating the User Selection node as a personnel directory or business data selector. The node only executes a branch according to the choice. It does not perform entity isolation or permission filtering. The check observes which branch runs and does not infer filtering capability.
- Treating the interaction state as automatic judgment or as a guarantee about submission counts. The node records state and waits after triggering, then continues downward execution after submission. The check observes the waiting and continuing behavior and does not assume automatic determination or snapshot guarantees.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three hypothetical source sentences and the draft sentence "All personnel at this store have completed cashier training and all have passed the assessment." Compare 4 sign-ins and 4 participants against 3 passes and 1 awaiting retake. The condition is met when the output states that the draft sentence is not supported by the materials and preserves the awaiting-retake state as incomplete.
- Input the same store and period but omit the assessment scores. Compare whether the required fields are complete. The condition is met when the Form Input node stays in the interaction state with the field missing, and after the field is supplied, submits and passes the information to later nodes.
- Input one choice question at the User Selection node and select each of the two branches in turn. Compare the two execution paths. The condition is met when each choice executes its corresponding branch and execution continues downward after the interaction completes. A retrieval check observes what is actually returned; it does not guarantee a first-hit match or full recall. An empty result can be checked against the downstream design using an explicit paper input of an empty list, without claiming that a fictional-rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty list. Different models cannot be associated together; verify identifiers first and exclude those that do not match.