What the documents look like
Franchise filing management handles legal disclosure and the commerce department filing system. It does not handle site-specific store engineering. The working documents fall into four groups: franchise contracts, operations manuals, filing materials, and information disclosure documents. The underlying sources include the commercial franchise information management system, enterprise licences, store lists, and contract ledgers.
Those materials determine what product and marketing copy may state. Any sentence about filing status, the two-store one-year condition, franchise fees, or the scope of authorization needs a corresponding record in one of those documents. Filings and disclosure files are updated irregularly, so drafting works from the existing ledger and archived disclosure documents at hand. Real-time synchronization is not assumed.
Constraints at the retrieval step
A knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together. The vector model identifier is checked first, non-matching bases are excluded, and the actual association is recorded. Cross-model retrieval is not run to compare missed recalls.
Retrieval runs as semantic, full-text, or hybrid search. Hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF; RRF is a fusion process inside hybrid retrieval, not a separate switch. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It is a filter threshold and does not perform permission or entity isolation. The citation limit is measured in tokens and controls how much content one search may cite. Question optimization performs coreference resolution and question expansion and adds one model call.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material states, "Party A is the franchisor and Party B is the franchisee; the authorization scope of this contract covers three stores in the East China region; the filing status is submitted to the commerce authority, pending review." The sentence to be assessed is, "This brand has completed franchise filing, and franchisees may use the authorization nationwide." The check compares the subject (franchisor), the object (authorization scope), the status (pending review), and the draft sentence. Pending review does not amount to completed filing, and the recorded authorization covers three East China stores. The nationwide scope in the draft has no support in the material and is recorded as pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this page | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate only filing material bases that share one vector model | Check the vector model identifier first, exclude bases on other models, record the actual association result |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Test semantic, full-text, and hybrid against draft sentences containing both identifiers and natural language, then compare recalled content |
| Citation limit | 2000 tokens as the starting point for this exercise | Test contracts and disclosure documents of different lengths for content completeness, compare against a shorter value to observe truncation |
| Minimum relevance | 0.5 as the starting point for this exercise | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then adjust the threshold and observe how filtered results change |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Compare multi-turn follow-up questions against the original question, check whether the subject has been altered |
| Result reranking | Enabled according to settings | Where a rerank model is available, compare ordering changes; where it is not enabled, record the step as not executed |
Three common errors
- Writing a pending filing as a completed filing. The input is the source text "filing status is submitted to the commerce authority, pending review." The comparison is the draft sentence "has completed franchise filing." The status field holds different values, so the draft is unsupported.
- Expanding a three-store East China authorization into a nationwide scope. The input is the authorization scope field in the source text. The comparison is the region and store count in the draft sentence. A scope beyond the recorded one is unsupported, and the evidence gap is preserved.
- Associating knowledge bases that use different vector models. The input is the vector model identifier of each base. The comparison is whether the identifiers match. Non-matching bases are excluded and recorded, without inferring any runtime outcome.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the hypothetical source text and the draft sentence, then compare the subject, object, and status fields. If the filing status and authorization scope in the draft both have corresponding records in the source, the draft is supported. If the status is pending review while the draft claims completion, the draft is unsupported.
- Enter a draft sentence containing an identifier and retrieve it under semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes. Compare whether the recalled content contains the corresponding identifier record. For the failure branch, record a miss when nothing is recalled; first-item hits and complete recall are not guaranteed.
- Enter an explicit paper input of an empty array
[]and check whether the downstream node still runs its output path. Cited content is output as an array whose length may be 0, so the downstream design must accept an empty result. No claim is made that a fictional rule search always returns an empty array.