What the documents look like
For document comparison in Franchise store supervision, this page examines FastGPT document chunking. Display-list scope and store observations must not merge beneath a shared heading. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the document chunking step
A proposed convenience-store supervision list is headed items required on display this period, with a note excluding backroom stock from display. A separate visit record observes beverage cartons in the backroom. A completion question needs the list identity and exclusion preserved during parsing; the observation cannot be inserted into a completed-display list. It identifies a location, not shelf or end-display placement. Actual item entries are absent, so the exercise also cannot invent which products the current period requires or treat the observed beverage as a confirmed list member.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Original or chunk check | Specific source relationship | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement identity | Current required-display list | Keep list separate from observation. |
| Location qualification | Backroom stock excluded from display | Keep qualification with scope. |
| Visit subject | Backroom cartons observed only | Do not convert into completed display. |
| Membership gap | Actual list entries absent | Do not infer membership from beverage wording. |
| Two-source update | List and visit versions remain distinct | Check processing and returned source identity. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Original-document check | Compare original files with parsed output. |
Chunk completeness | Keep conditions traceable to their subjects. |
Data and indexes | Retain original-data and index evidence separately. |
Sample retrieval | Retest literal wording and natural questions. |
Post-update check | Inspect training or index state after updates. |
Three common errors
One failure separates backroom stock excluded from the list heading, allowing cartons to count as display. Another parses the visit record and agreed list as one source, turning observations into requirements. Inspect document identity, heading membership and location qualifications in actual blocks to distinguish lost conditions from merged sources. A beverage index match cannot establish list membership or compliance; trace the object actually supported by the original wording. Shared terms alone cannot calculate completion or supply display facts missing from the current material.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance should query current list, backroom stock and whether observed cartons count as completed display. Returned citations must retain both exclusion and observation identity. The answer should identify that backroom stock does not fill the display-evidence gap and that actual list entries and display records remain needed. After adding a list or revised visit record, inspect processing and index state before repeating the question. Upload success cannot replace observation evidence or prove that source merging was repaired; compare originals and returned blocks before reaching that conclusion.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Store Visit Report, Franchise Contract, Rectification Notice and Display Standards |
| Candidate sources | Supervisor APP, POS Sales, Franchise System and Store Photos |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |