What the documents look like
Franchise fee and deposit settlement concerns money received, money paid out and deductions for breach. The working materials are franchise fee invoices, deposit ledgers, deduction notices and contractual payment schedules. These materials come from the finance system, the franchise contract, bank statements and store violation records, and they update monthly and on each deduction. Copy drafting for goods and marketing has to cite the fee items, amount definitions and status wording that appear in those materials. Whether a drafted sentence is supported depends on whether the source text states the matching party, object and effective scope.
The task on this page is narrow: draft goods and marketing copy for franchise fee and deposit settlement, and configure the model connection that supports that drafting. The model connection lets the drafting process call an enabled language model and an enabled index model, and it lets a reviewer compare drafted sentences against source materials sentence by sentence. This page does not cover government filing for franchise registration, and it does not turn copy review into an identity certification procedure.
Constraints at the model connections step
The system needs at least one language model and one index model before it works normally. From V4.17.0, AI Proxy is a required dependency. Both the App service and any Admin service that reuses App/Service configuration must set AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT and a non-empty AIPROXY_API_TOKEN. A missing value in either one causes startup validation to fail. Older OpenAI environment variables and single-model custom request addresses do not replace these two settings.
The model ID is the value of the model field in the request body and is globally unique. The model name is for display and can be customized. A model can be configured in more than one channel for load balancing. Custom request address and custom key exist as an option that bypasses the model channel, and the documentation describes this as generally unnecessary and not recommended.
Hypothetical paper exercise. A chain brand finance staff member supplies three source sentences for checking: "March 2026 franchise fee invoice, amount RMB 50,000, corresponding to contract number A-2026-017, payer is a named restaurant management company." "The deposit ledger shows the deposit balance for that contract is RMB 100,000, status received in full." "The deduction notice records a March 2026 deduction of RMB 2,000 for a store violation, reason being failure to follow standard operation." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "This brand charges a franchise fee of RMB 50,000, a deposit of RMB 100,000, and RMB 2,000 per violation, with transparent fees and no disputes." That sentence merges amounts from three separate materials into one outward-facing claim and adds "no disputes," which no material states. The comparison has to proceed item by item on party, period and field.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT | Enter the AI Proxy service root address without appending /v1 | Compare against the service address used by the deployment template and confirm the path level matches |
AIPROXY_API_TOKEN | Enter a non-empty administrator token consistent with the server side | Compare against the AI Proxy server configuration value and confirm it is non-empty and consistent |
| Language model enabled state | Enable at least one language model | Compare against the documented requirement of at least one language model |
| Index model enabled state | Enable at least one index model | Compare against the documented requirement of at least one index model |
| Model capability check | Check model capabilities against the inputs the copy drafting needs | Compare against fields such as vision and toolChoice in the model configuration |
| Model probe configuration | Set the probe interval to an integer between 5 and 60 minutes | Compare against the documented probe interval range |
These rows describe settings and checks that this page's documents actually state. They are not a claim that any of them was applied, tested or approved.
Three common errors
- Writing an amount tied to one contract as a general marketing amount for all franchisees. In the hypothetical sample, RMB 50,000 and RMB 100,000 both correspond to contract number A-2026-017. The draft sentence omits that party and period limit, so the comparison should show the amount's scope has been widened.
- Rewriting the deposit status "received in full" as "refundable" or "no disputes." The material states only that the status is received in full. It does not state refund conditions or the existence or absence of disputes, so "no disputes" in the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Writing a single deduction amount from a deduction notice as a fixed standard. The material records one deduction of RMB 2,000 in March 2026. The draft sentence turns that single record into a general rule, "RMB 2,000 per violation," which the material does not support.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three hypothetical source sentences and the draft sentence. Compare each amount, party and status in the draft sentence against the source text, looking for a matching party, matching period and matching field. If the draft sentence contains "no disputes," which the source text does not state, record that sentence as unsupported and keep the source scope as it stands. A sentence that keeps the contract reference and the period is consistent with the material.
- Input contract number A-2026-017 and the draft sentence. Compare the scope of the amounts. If the draft sentence states the amounts without limiting them to that contract number, the scope has been widened. If the draft sentence retains a limit such as "under that contract," it is consistent with the material.
- Input the deposit ledger status "received in full" and the draft sentence. Compare whether the status field has been rewritten. If the draft sentence introduces "refundable" or "no disputes," which the material does not state, the sentence is unsupported. If the draft sentence states only that the deposit was received in full, it is consistent with the material.
Where a comparison finds no corresponding entry in the source material, the item remains unsupported or pending verification rather than being treated as contradicted. A pending review does not show that an operating permission is missing, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.