What the documents look like
Site selection and store opening work happens before a store begins trading, and the material set centres on leasing and engineering handover rather than on trading operations. The working documents are the site evaluation form, the letter of intent for lease, the fit-out budget, and the opening schedule. These are maintained separately by headquarters expansion staff, regional development staff, and engineering managers, and they are refreshed irregularly, once per store.
The comparison task in this page covers contract and transaction materials. The practical question is whether the same party, the same period, and the same field agree across the letter of intent, the fit-out budget, and the opening schedule. Fields that matter include the rent amount, the start and end of the rent-free period, and the handover date. The tool call and plug-in layer is responsible for passing the source text and the comparison request to a model or plug-in, and for returning the result to the flow. It does not stand in for business authorisation.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool description tells the model what the tool is for. It needs to state the purpose, the input conditions, and the situations in which the tool should not be called. Tool parameters fall into two kinds: parameters fixed by a system module, and parameters configurable in a plug-in. Where a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may decline to call the tool; an interactive prompt can guide the user to supply the value, and the actual request then needs to be checked against what was intended.
In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the documented guidance is to tune a small number of tools before adding more. The tool call termination node ends the current call: no further tools are called, and the AI is no longer asked to summarise the tool result. Material comparison touches permissions and effective status. Retrieval or a form supplies candidate values only; authorisation and effectiveness require separate checking.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The letter of intent for lease reads: "Party A lets the shop to Party B; the lease term runs from 1 March 2026 to 28 February 2029; first-year rent is RMB 80,000 per month; the rent-free period is two months; Party B must sign the formal contract on or before 20 February 2026." The fit-out budget reads: "The total fit-out budget for this store is RMB 600,000, including a deposit of RMB 160,000 corresponding to first-year rent of RMB 80,000 per month." The draft sentence under review is: "The lease between the parties took effect on 20 February 2026, with rent and the rent-free period as stated in the letter of intent." The letter of intent states a signing deadline only. It does not state that the contract has taken effect, so the effectiveness conclusion in the draft sentence lacks support.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists only settings that the official material describes, or implementation checks tied to the documents on this page.
| Configuration item | Value or checking method | Relation to these documents |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State that the comparison covers the letter of intent, the fit-out budget, and the opening schedule, and that the tool is not called when material is missing | Determines whether the model calls the comparison tool |
| Tool parameters | System module parameters are fixed; plug-in parameters are checked item by item for description and required status | A parameter description does not guarantee execution |
| Required parameters | Party, period, and field name set as required; interactive completion when missing | With no suitable value, the model may not call the tool |
| Tool connection | In advanced orchestration, connect the comparison plug-in to the tool call module; tune a small number of tools first | Only a connected tool enters the tool call path |
| Tool call termination | After comparison, connect the termination node so the AI does not summarise | Ends the current call without an extra summary |
| Starting point for this exercise | Comparison scope set to letters of intent signed on or before 20 February 2026, because that is the sample signing deadline, compared separately against the formal contract effective date | A starting point for this exercise only, not an official default |
Three common errors
- Treating the signing deadline in the letter of intent as the contract effective date. Check: input the letter of intent text and the draft sentence, compare the "signing deadline" field against the "effective" field, and record that the letter of intent does not state effectiveness, so the result is unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval hit as proof of authorisation or effectiveness. Check: input the retrieved letter of intent entry and the draft sentence, compare whether the entry states the authorising party and the conditions for effectiveness, and record an evidence gap when it does not.
- Treating a tool parameter description as a guarantee of execution. Check: input the plug-in parameter description and the sample request, compare the description text against the actual request parameters, and leave the outcome unknown where the description does not state what happens when a required parameter is missing.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the letter of intent text "the lease term runs from 1 March 2026 to 28 February 2029; first-year rent is RMB 80,000 per month; the rent-free period is two months", and compare it against the draft sentence "rent and the rent-free period as stated in the letter of intent". Same party, same period, same field, and matching values satisfy the condition. The "contract took effect" part of the draft sentence has no corresponding source text and remains unsupported.
- Verification two: input the fit-out budget text "including a deposit of RMB 160,000 corresponding to first-year rent of RMB 80,000 per month", and compare the rent field against the letter of intent. The rent values agree at both places, which satisfies the condition. The deposit amount is not stated in the letter of intent; record it as pending verification rather than as a contradiction.
- Verification three: input the request under review, "apply rent and the rent-free period as stated in the letter of intent", and compare whether party, period, and field name are all present in the tool parameters. When all are present, the comparison proceeds; when any is missing, the required parameter is completed interactively. If retrieval returns an empty result, check the downstream design against the paper input [], without claiming that a fictional rule always returns []. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; check the identifier and exclude non-matching entries, then record what was observed.