What the documents look like
Franchise filing management handles legal disclosure and the commerce department system, not site-specific store engineering. The main data sources are the commercial franchise information management system, enterprise licenses, store lists, and contract ledgers. Daily documents cluster into four types: franchise contracts, operations manuals, filing materials, and information disclosure documents. Copy drafting for goods and marketing draws checkable statements from these documents. Whether a promotional sentence in a draft is supported by the materials is the primary task of this page; enterprise identity certification and filing report analysis fall outside this page's scope. Material update frequency is irregular and annual. This page's function does not depend on that frequency, and no batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanism is inferred from it.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
Copy drafting requires obtaining the source material text first, then comparing each proposed sentence against it. When the form input node triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, collects required information, and after submission passes that information to subsequent nodes. The user selection node executes the corresponding "yes" branch after the user makes a selection. The interaction state is recorded by the node; no separate global state-recording switch is configured. Collected information must be explicitly passed to subsequent retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs are compared item by item against inputs. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or subsequent flow; the nodes themselves do not perform these actions.
Hypothetical drill sample: a franchise headquarters legal staff member submits an excerpt from an Information Disclosure Document. The source text reads: "As of June 30, 2025, this brand has 12 directly operated stores nationwide, of which 8 have been in continuous operation for at least one year." The draft sentence reads: "This brand has ten years of direct-operation experience, with stores across the country." The pending request is: "Please approve whether this sentence may be used on a franchise recruitment page." The source text contains the subject (this brand), the object (directly operated stores), the status (8 in continuous operation for at least one year), and the effective scope (as of June 30, 2025, nationwide). The draft sentence's "ten years" and "across the country" are not stated in the source text and remain unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check method on this page | Basis and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect three required items: source material text, draft sentence, decision request | Form input documentation: after submission, pass to subsequent nodes |
| User selection node | Set a yes/no branch and verify branch connections one by one | User selection documentation: after selection, execute the "yes" branch |
| Interaction state check | Enter interaction state and record state after triggering | Interaction node behavior; no global state switch is claimed |
| Output handoff check | Explicitly pass the three items to the comparison node | Compare outputs against inputs item by item |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | Draft sentence comparison uses source date June 30, 2025 as the boundary | This is a hypothetical starting point, compared with the date stated in the source |
| External operation division | Page publication and contract backfill connect to a separate business interface | Nodes do not perform writes or synchronization |
Three common errors
- Judging the draft sentence "ten years of direct-operation experience" as directly contradictory to the source. The source states only the number of directly operated stores and the count in continuous operation for at least one year as of June 30, 2025. It does not state operating years. That expression is unsupported. A contradiction judgment requires mutually exclusive values for the same subject, same period, and same field.
- Treating the user selection node's "yes" branch as approval. The user's selection only triggers the corresponding branch. A pending-review status does not demonstrate missing operation permission and does not constitute filing or publication approval.
- Assuming the form input node automatically completes page publication or contract backfill after submission. The node only collects and passes information; writing and synchronization require a separate business interface.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the three items of the hypothetical sample. Compare the downstream input after form input node submission against the draft sentence and source text. Observe whether all three items are passed completely. When any item is missing, record the gap; do not fabricate authorization or effective clauses.
- Enter the draft sentence and the source date June 30, 2025. Compare whether "ten years" and "across the country" have corresponding fields in the source text. The observed result is unsupported; it must not be judged as negation or conflict.
- Enter the user selection request. Compare the selection result against the "yes" branch connection. Observe whether the branch executes according to the selection. A pending-review status is not treated as completed approval. Retrieval checks record only observations and failed branches; they do not guarantee a first-hit result or an empty result.