What the documents look like
Franchise onboarding support transfers operating capability. It sits apart from legal filing and disclosure work. The comparison materials are training sign-in sheets, opening checklists, SOP manuals and assessment scores. Their update rhythm is per store and monthly. Contract and transaction material comparison aligns subject, object, status and validity scope across those materials. The tool call and plugin step lets the model select nodes on demand inside an orchestration and handle call results under control.
Two features of this category shape the task. First, the materials carry operating facts rather than legal representations, so a status such as pending review belongs to a verification step and says nothing about who may act. Second, the same store appears across several documents with different dates, so a comparison must match subject, period and field before any conclusion is drawn.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool description tells the model what the tool does, and the model decides from context whether to call it. System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. Parameter descriptions do not guarantee execution. When a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may decline to call the tool; prompts can guide the user to supply the value, and the actual request is then checked. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and a small set of tools is tuned before more are added. The tool call termination node ends the current call: no further tools run and the AI does not answer about the tool results. Retrieval and forms collect or return information only. Authorization decisions, approval, database writes and external synchronization need separately described downstream implementation.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text reads "Party A, a chain training department, ran cashier and inventory training for Party B's two store managers from 1 March 2025 to 5 March 2025; the sign-in sheet records both attended. The opening checklist records that the store's materials were verified on 6 March 2025, with status pending review. The assessment sheet records scores of 82 and 76 for the two managers." The draft sentence under review reads "Party B's store managers have completed training and the opening materials have passed verification, so an opening application may be filed." The request involves two facts, training completion and material verification. The verification status is pending review, and the draft sentence states it as passed verification, which the source does not support.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table lists documented settings or implementation checks tied to this sample. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial only, chosen so they can be compared against the dates and status recorded in the sample. They are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State that input is the text of the sign-in sheet and the opening checklist | Inspect whether the description names situations where the tool should not be called |
| Tool parameters | Configure plugin parameters against the sample fields | Compare against parameter description and required flag |
| Required parameters | Treat date range and subject as required | Observe whether the model declines to call when they are absent |
| Tool connections | Connect only the sign-in sheet tool and the checklist tool | Follow the guidance to tune a small set of tools first |
| Tool call termination | Attach after the checklist tool | Observe whether the AI summary of tool results is skipped |
| Custom tool variables | Add a parameter description for the assessment sheet | Check whether the corresponding node is triggered |
Three common errors
- Treating a parameter description as a guarantee of execution. In the sample the checklist status is pending review. If the draft sentence states passed verification, the input and the source text disagree, and the observable result is a draft sentence that conflicts with the status field in the material.
- Treating retrieval or a form as an authorization action. The sample sign-in sheet records attendance only and states nothing about authorization to open. Concluding that an opening application may be filed goes beyond what the material records, and the observable result is a conclusion with no corresponding field.
- Treating pending review as absence of operating authority. In the sample, pending review means the verification step is unfinished. Inferring that Party B lacks operating authority moves a status field into a permission judgment, and the observable result is a conclusion that does not correspond to the material field.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence. Compare "have completed training and the opening materials have passed verification" in the draft against "status pending review" in the source. If the draft and the source status field disagree, the sentence is unsupported and the evidence gap is recorded.
- Input the sample source text and the opening application request. Compare the subject and date range in the request against Party A, Party B and the period 1 March 2025 to 6 March 2025 in the source. If the request goes beyond the recorded scope or lacks an authorization field, it is marked to be verified and is not treated as approved.
- Input an explicit paper empty result [] together with the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream branch handles the empty result. If the downstream still outputs a definite conclusion, record that the branch does not accept the empty result. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].