What the documents look like
Franchise fee and deposit settlement deals with funds and breach deductions. It does not perform government filing. The main records come from the finance system, the franchise contract, bank statements and store violation records. Day-to-day documents include franchise fee invoices, deposit ledgers, deduction notices and contract payment schedules. The brief gives monthly and per-deduction update frequencies; this page does not assume batch synchronization or real-time triggers.
Copy drafting for goods and marketing needs interactive forms to carry two kinds of input: the source text of the material to be checked, and the proposed promotional sentence or handover request. The form input node collects the information a user fills in and passes it to later nodes after submission; it does not include a business database function of its own. The user selection node executes a branch according to the user's choice; it is not a staff directory or a business data selector.
A hypothetical paper sample is used throughout this page. the source material reads "Party A and Party B signed the Regional Franchise Cooperation Contract on 1 March 2025. The first franchise fee is RMB 80,000, payable under the payment plan on or before 10 April 2025. The deposit is RMB 50,000, and the refund conditions are governed by Appendix 2 of the contract." Proposed sentence: "Signing completes payment of the franchise fee, and the deposit is refundable at any time." This sample is for paper checking only. It does not represent a real customer or a completed transaction.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
When the form input node or the user selection node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, records the workflow state and waits for the interaction. After the user completes it, the workflow continues downward. Field validation, business approval, write-back and batch operations need to be implemented in an external system or in later nodes; the nodes themselves do not carry out these business actions.
Copy assessment requires the same subject, the same period and the same field. When the material does not state a fact, or provides only evidence from a related stage, the conclusion is unsupported or pending verification. A pending review does not show that an operation permission is absent. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period.
The proposed sentence in the sample must be checked against the source wording. The source states a signing date, a payment plan and a refund condition tied to Appendix 2. The proposed sentence asserts that signing completes payment and that the deposit is refundable at any time. The signing date and the payment due date are different dates, so the first assertion is unsupported. Appendix 2 is not provided, so the second assertion is pending verification. No authorization or effectiveness clause is invented to produce a definite answer.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting on this page | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enabled, collecting source material and proposed sentence | The official description states the node collects filled-in information and passes it to later nodes |
| Required fields | Source material, proposed sentence, subject name | When a field is missing the interaction cannot be submitted; it continues after the field is supplied |
| User selection node | Enabled, with branches "supported", "unsupported", "pending verification" | The official description states the node executes a branch according to the choice |
| Interactive state | Records state and waits after triggering | The official description states the workflow continues after the interaction is completed |
| Assessment fields | Payment status, refund conditions | Compared within the same subject, period and field |
| Downstream handling | Field validation and approval implemented in an external system | The node does not include a business database function |
Three common errors
- Treating "the contract was signed" as "the franchise fee has been paid". Input: the sample source material and the proposed sentence. Compare the signing date with the payment plan due date. Observable result: the two dates differ, and the proposed sentence is not supported by the material.
- Treating "refund conditions are governed by Appendix 2" as "refundable at any time". Input: the sample source material. Compare "at any time" with "governed by Appendix 2". Observable result: the content of Appendix 2 is not provided, so the conclusion is pending verification.
- Treating the user selection node as business approval or permission control. Input: the node configuration and branch design. Compare the node function description with the approval requirement. Observable result: the node only executes a branch, and approval needs an external system implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source material and the proposed sentence, and select the "unsupported" branch. Compare the signing date with the payment due date. The condition is met when the branch enters "unsupported" and the downstream node receives that conclusion.
- Input the sample source material and select the "pending verification" branch. Compare "refundable at any time" with the Appendix 2 reference. The condition is met when the conclusion keeps the evidence gap open and does not fabricate an authorization clause.
- Input an empty-result downstream scenario, using the paper input [] to check the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream handles the empty input as empty. The condition is met when the downstream does not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. All three are paper expectations and were not actually executed.