What the documents look like
Site selection and store opening work happens before a store begins trading. The controlling materials are lease documents and engineering delivery documents, not store supervision records. A site evaluation form records trade-area footfall and map POI calculation results. A lease letter of intent records landlord details and negotiated terms. A renovation budget and an opening schedule record engineering milestones. These materials update irregularly, one set per store.
For the contract and transaction material comparison task, the relevant fields across the letter of intent, the budget and the schedule must correspond to one another. The work is to place subject, object, amount, date and status side by side and judge whether a proposed sentence or a handover request has material support. The site evaluation form, the lease letter of intent, the renovation budget and the opening schedule are the four document types that feed this comparison. The three most time-consuming steps in the wider category are calculating the rent-to-sales ratio, negotiating lease terms and coordinating renovation milestones; only the second and third bear directly on this page, because they generate the status and schedule fields that the comparison consumes.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The comparison workflow runs in order: collect materials, retrieve relevant clauses, judge whether fields agree, pass the conclusion to later nodes. The FastGPT form input node enters an interaction state when triggered, collects required information, and after submission passes that information to later nodes. The user selection node, after the user makes a choice, executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The interaction state is behaviour of the interaction node itself; no separate global state-recording switch is documented.
Retrieval finds relevant text. It does not perform permission judgement or subject isolation, and a similarity score does not exclude unrelated business records. Passing collected information to a retrieval, judgement or interface node requires item-by-item comparison of output against input. Order writing, document backfill and external status synchronisation must connect to a business interface or a later process; workflow routing does not complete those actions.
Hypothetical drill sample. Material text one: "Party A, a commercial management company, and Party B, a restaurant chain company, sign a lease letter of intent for the shop unit at No. 12, a certain road, a certain district, a certain city, with an intended lease term from 1 March 2026 to 28 February 2029, an intended monthly rent of 40,000 yuan, a signing date of 10 January 2026, and a status of pending Party A review." Material text two: "The renovation budget total for this unit is 600,000 yuan, and the opening schedule is set for 15 March 2026." Proposed sentence to be judged: "The lease contract between the parties has taken effect, and Party B may enter for renovation according to the schedule." The comparison object is the status field of the letter of intent against the phrase "has taken effect" in the proposed sentence.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below relates only to this sample and lists settings or implementation checks relevant to this task.
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Collect material name, subject, object and status fields | Carries the letter of intent and budget text |
| User selection node | Set yes/no branches for "whether the contract has taken effect" | Judges whether the proposed sentence may be released |
| Retrieval input | Use unit address and subject name as query text | Locates the letter of intent and budget passages |
| Output handover | Pass retrieval results into the judgement node | Compares the status field item by item |
| Interaction state | Wait for submission before continuing execution | Records comparison progress |
| External action division | Contract effect and entry permission connect to a business interface | This page does not execute that action |
Hypothetical trial starting point for this page: set the judgement threshold so that the "yes" branch runs only when the status field of the letter of intent is "has taken effect". The reason for choosing this starting point is that the sample status is "pending Party A review", which is mutually exclusive with "has taken effect", making the branch direction observable. This starting point is a hypothetical setting for this page and is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating "pending Party A review" as an effective contract. The input is the status field of the sample letter of intent, the comparison object is "has taken effect", and if the judgement node runs the "yes" branch this is a misidentification. The correct observable result is the "no" branch with the evidence gap retained.
- Treating a similar text hit from retrieval as a permission or subject filter. The input is the unit address query, the comparison object is the subject name, and if a letter of intent belonging to another subject is returned and adopted directly this is unauthorised use. The correct observable result is that only entries with a matching subject are adopted.
- Treating workflow routing as having completed contract effect or entry permission. The input is the proposed sentence, the comparison object is the letter of intent status, and if the output is "may enter for renovation" this is an overreaching conclusion. The correct observable result is a pending-verification label with handover to a business interface.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the sample letter of intent status "pending Party A review" and the proposed sentence "the contract has taken effect", compare the two status fields, and if the judgement node runs the "no" branch and outputs pending verification the condition is met; if it runs the "yes" branch, record a comparison failure.
- Verification two: input the query text "No. 12, a certain road, a certain district, a certain city", compare the subject name of returned entries against the sample Party A name, and if only letter of intent passages with a matching subject are adopted the condition is met; if an entry with a non-matching subject is adopted, record unauthorised use.
- Verification three: input an empty-result handover scenario, use the paper input
[]to check the downstream design, compare whether the downstream node handles it on the empty-result branch, and if the downstream produces no contract-effect or entry conclusion the condition is met; if the downstream still outputs a definite conclusion, record a handover error. All three are paper checks and no live test is claimed.
The materials, operations and requests that sit at a given authorisation state during operational handover cannot be treated as authorised execution on the strength of retrieval or a form. Retrieval and forms collect and locate; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronisation require their stated downstream implementation.