What the documents look like
Franchise filing management handles legal disclosure and the commerce department system. It does not handle specific storefront engineering. The working materials are franchise contracts, operations manuals, filing materials and information disclosure documents. Their sources are the commercial franchise information management system, enterprise licenses, store lists and contract ledgers.
These materials frequently disagree on subject, object, period and field definition. A contract ledger records signing and termination. Filing materials record disclosure and submission. Before any comparison, the reviewer must confirm the same franchisee, the same store and the same field. Data updates are irregular and annual, so retrieval configuration follows the actual volume of material rather than a fixed schedule.
Constraints at the retrieval step
Retrieval returns reference content only. It does not change any authorization state. A pending review request is not an approval. An unsigned termination is not a completed termination. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period.
Knowledge bases can be associated together only when they use the same vector model. Different-model bases are checked by identifier and excluded; no cross-model retrieval comparison is performed. The minimum relevance score is a filter threshold. It does not perform subject, entity or permission isolation, and it does not exclude unauthorized records. Empty reference output has a length of zero, and the downstream chain still runs. How that downstream chain handles an empty array is a separate design question.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads, "Party A, XX Catering Management Co., Ltd., and Party B, a franchisee, signed a franchise contract on 1 March 2024, with a three-year term, agreeing that Party B operates the store at No. 1 XX Road, XX District, XX City. On 1 June 2025, Party B submitted a termination application to Party A, and Party A has not yet signed." The draft sentence to be judged is, "The franchise contract was terminated on 1 June 2025." The comparison object is the same franchisee, the same store and the same contract field. The material shows only that a termination application was submitted. It does not show signature or effectiveness, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge base | Associate only one filing materials base that uses the same vector model | Check the vector model identifier first, and exclude bases with a different model |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Contract numbers and natural-language questions coexist; compare semantic and full-text recall differences |
| Reference limit | Hypothetical starting value of 2000 tokens | Test content completeness against contracts and disclosure documents of differing lengths, and compare with a shorter limit |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting value of 0.5 | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then compare retained results after filtering |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Compare the original question with the optimized question, and check whether the subject was altered incorrectly |
| Result reranking | Enabled according to settings | When candidates are numerous, compare ordering before and after reranking |
Three common errors
- Treating a submitted termination application as a completed termination. Input: the source material above and the draft sentence. Compare the contract status field. The material records only submission of an application, while the draft sentence states termination. The draft is unsupported.
- Treating the minimum relevance score as a permission filter. Input: a question about an unrelated franchisee. Compare the subject of the returned content. Relevance affects ordering and filtering only; it does not exclude unauthorized records.
- Associating knowledge bases that use different vector models. Input: two bases with different model identifiers. Compare the model identifiers. Different identifiers mean exclusion, and no retrieval comparison is performed.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source material above and the draft sentence. Compare the contract status field. When the material does not record signature or effectiveness, the judgment is unsupported, not contradictory.
- Input a query containing a contract number. Compare the reference content returned by full-text search and by hybrid search, and observe whether the number is matched. If it is not matched, record the failure branch. A first-position match is not guaranteed.
- Input an empty array [] and check the downstream chain. Observe whether the output length is zero and whether the chain still runs. Do not claim that a fabricated rule always returns an empty array from retrieval.