What the documents look like
Franchise filing management handles legal disclosure and the commerce department system. It does not handle specific storefront engineering. The main data sources are the commercial franchise information management system, enterprise licenses, store lists, and contract ledgers. Everyday documents are franchise contracts, operations manuals, filing materials, and information disclosure files. The most time-consuming steps are preparing filing materials, checking the two stores for one year condition, and updating franchise information. Contract and transaction material comparison requires field-by-field checking of subject, object, status, and effective scope across these documents.
Two features of this category shape the comparison task. First, the documents come from different systems and are not written to a shared template, so the same fact may appear in one document and be absent from another. Second, the material is legal disclosure and filing material, so a comparison result that states a fact more strongly than the source text supports can create contract disputes or administrative penalties. A comparison workflow must therefore separate what the source text states from what the draft sentence claims.
Assumed paper exercise sample. A franchisor headquarters legal staff member intends to check one franchise contract against filing materials for consistency. The source text available for checking is: "Party A authorizes Party B to operate a XX brand franchise store in XX district, XX city, with a contract term from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2028. Party B shall pay a franchise fee of RMB 100,000 within thirty days after signing." A separate store list records: "XX brand franchise store, XX district, XX city, status: signed, signing date: December 15, 2024." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "The franchise store completed signing and obtained authorization on December 15, 2024." The task is to determine whether "completed signing and obtained authorization" in the draft sentence matches the source text on the same subject, the same period, and the same field.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool can be a system module or a plug-in. The tool introduction, parameter description, and required flag affect whether the model calls the tool; they do not by themselves produce execution. System module parameters are fixed, while plug-in parameters are configured separately. When a suitable required value is missing, the model may not call the tool; interactive completion can supply it, and the actual request should then be checked. In advanced orchestration, connect a small number of tools first and tune them before adding more. The tool call termination node ends the current tool call and stops further tool calls and AI summarization of tool results. Custom tool variables can add parameter descriptions for nodes not treated as tool parameters.
For this comparison task, the tool introduction should state the input conditions and the situations in which the tool should not be called. Retrieval results only provide candidate materials. Forms only collect values. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization require their stated downstream implementation. A similarity score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and retrieval is not authorization.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Assumed starting point for this exercise | Comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State the input conditions for contract comparison and the situations in which the tool should not be called | Compare the tool introduction text against whether it covers the input conditions the comparison task requires |
| Tool parameters | Check system module parameters and plug-in configurable parameters separately | Check the parameter description and required flag; treat the parameter description as a description, not as evidence of execution |
| Required parameters | When a suitable required parameter is missing, the model may not call the tool | Complete the value interactively and check the actual parameter value in the request |
| Tool connection | In advanced orchestration, connect available tools to the tool call module | Start with a small number of tools and observe whether the call timing is precise |
| Tool call termination | The termination node ends the current tool call | Observe whether further tools are called and whether AI summarization of tool results still occurs |
| Custom tool variables | For nodes not treated as tool parameters, fill in a parameter description | Observe whether the tool call invokes that node and the workflow after it |
The assumed starting points above are exercise settings chosen to make the comparison observable. They are not official defaults. Each is compared against the actual configured text or the actual request, and any difference is recorded as an observation.
Three common errors
- Treating a parameter description as evidence of execution. A parameter description explains what the parameter means. It does not by itself show that the model calls the tool or passes a correct value. Check by entering the contract source text and store list from the assumed sample, comparing the actual parameter values in the tool request against the source text, and observing whether they match.
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorized execution. Retrieval results only provide candidate materials, and a form only collects values. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization need downstream implementation. Check by entering the draft sentence from the assumed sample, comparing subject, object, and status between the draft sentence and the source text, and observing whether the output treats an unstated status as completed.
- Treating tool call termination as skippable. The termination node forces the current tool call to end, stops further tool calls, and stops AI summarization of tool results. Check by connecting the termination node at the end of the tool flow, entering the assumed sample, and observing whether any later tool is called or any AI summary output still appears.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one. Input the contract source text and store list from the assumed sample, and compare the draft sentence "The franchise store completed signing and obtained authorization on December 15, 2024" against the source text. The store list supports signing on December 15. The contract contains the operating authorization and the 2025 to 2028 term, but it does not contain a date or effective basis for obtaining authorization on December 15. Expected observation: the output marks "completed signing" and "obtained authorization" separately, marks the authorization date as unsupported or pending verification, and does not judge the draft sentence as consistent with the source text.
- Verification two. Input the contract source text from the assumed sample, and compare the contract term "from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2028" against the signing date "December 15, 2024" in the store list. Expected observation: the output identifies these as different fields, does not merge the signing date and the contract term into one period, and does not conclude from this comparison that the contract has taken effect.
- Verification three. Input the draft sentence from the assumed sample, and compare "completed signing and obtained authorization" against the source text. Expected observation: the output distinguishes signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness as three different facts, keeps the existing authorization clause, marks the authorization date and effectiveness record as pending verification when they are missing, and does not supply a definite conclusion.
If a comparison step has no source text for a field, the result remains unknown. A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Record the gap rather than filling it.