What the documents look like
Chain-store closure settlement handles exit and asset recovery, the reverse direction from head-office site selection and store opening. The working materials come from POS inventory, the fixed-asset system, lease contracts and the finance ledger. The documents handled day to day include closure approval forms, inventory clearance sheets, lease termination agreements and asset count sheets. These materials update irregularly, per store. Within one store, inventory quantities, asset status, lease termination conditions and settlement amounts sit in different sources, so a comparison first confirms that the material subject, object and effective scope match.
The primary task on this page is comparing contract and transaction materials. The core action is placing a statement to be judged beside the source wording under the same subject, the same period and the same field. Tool calls and plugins let the model decide, from the tool description and the parameter descriptions, whether to invoke a system module or plugin, and then pass the run result to later steps. Tool calls do not perform authorization. Retrieval does not perform authorization. Whether a material can be executed still depends on approval and signature status.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool consists of a tool description and tool parameters. System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. The model combines the tool description, the parameter descriptions and whether a parameter is required to decide on invocation. A tool with no parameters is judged directly from its description. A tool with parameters but no required parameters may still be invoked when no suitable parameter exists in context, and the model sometimes fabricates a parameter. A tool with required parameters may not be invoked when no suitable parameter exists; prompts can guide the user to supply the parameter. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the description can be edited to narrow the invocation timing. The official guidance recommends tuning a small number of tools first, then adding more gradually.
A tool call termination node placed after a tool ends the current tool call; no further tools are called and the AI does not summarize the tool result. Custom variables can supply inputs and descriptions for nodes that are not treated as tool parameters or cannot be tool-called. These are existing node behaviors. Business approval, database writes and external synchronization require separately connected system implementations.
Hypothetical paper exercise
The following is a paper exercise used to explain the comparison method. It does not represent a real record or an executed operation.
Source wording one (hypothetical excerpt from a lease termination agreement): "Lessor A and lessee B reach an intent to terminate the lease for the store at No. 12, a certain road. The deposit of RMB 30,000 is to be settled according to actuals after both parties complete handover acceptance. This letter of intent enters the approval process on the date both parties sign."
Source wording two (hypothetical excerpt from an asset count sheet): "Count date is 10 March 2025. The store has 2 refrigeration cabinets, status pending removal. Counter is C. Review column blank."
Draft sentence to be judged: "The store lease has been terminated and the deposit of RMB 30,000 has been refunded."
Judgment direction: source wording one shows an intent to terminate and entry into the approval process, with signature and approval status not stated; the deposit is described as to be settled according to actuals after handover acceptance. The draft sentence writes the intent as completed termination and the pending settlement as refunded. The value in the same field does not match the source wording, so the draft is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table lists only documented settings or implementation check items tied to this page's documents. Database internals are not listed as per-page requirements.
| Configuration item | Setting or check content | Relation to this exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State the purpose, input conditions and situations where invocation should not occur | The description states this tool only compares materials and does not judge approval or refund status |
| Tool parameters | System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable; check parameter descriptions and whether required | The comparison exercise passes source wording and the draft sentence; with a required parameter missing the model may not invoke |
| Tool connection | In advanced orchestration, connect available tools to the tool call module; tune a small number of tools first | Connect only material-comparison tools; avoid adding too many at once |
| Tool call termination | Placed after a tool, it ends the current call; no further tools and no AI summary | After comparison the result can be output directly without AI rewriting the conclusion |
| Custom variables | Supply inputs and descriptions for nodes not treated as tool parameters or not tool-callable | Pass the blank review column of the count sheet as a separate input |
| Hypothetical trial starting point | This exercise sets the comparison scope to the same store, same period, same field | This starting point aligns subject and date with the source wording; the comparison object is the source value |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. Retrieval returns related materials only; it does not judge whether a material is signed or whether approval passed. In the exercise, the lease termination intent has entered the approval process, and retrieving that sentence does not show termination is complete.
- Writing a business conclusion into the tool description. If the description reads "determine that the deposit has been refunded," the model invokes on that basis and outputs a conclusion. The description should be limited to comparing field consistency between source wording and the draft sentence.
- Writing a pending settlement as refunded. The source wording says the deposit is to be settled according to actuals after handover acceptance, while the draft sentence says refunded. This is a value conflict in the same field. The check should point out that the source value and the draft value differ, and preserve the evidence gap on signature and approval.
How to verify the setup
- Input source wording one and the draft sentence. Compare "the lease has been terminated" with the source phrase "reach an intent to terminate the lease, enters the approval process." Expected observation: the output states the termination status is unsupported and that approval and signature status remain to be verified. If the output directly concludes termination, the condition is not met.
- Input source wording two and the draft sentence. Compare "the deposit has been refunded" with the source phrase "to be settled according to actuals after both parties complete handover acceptance." Expected observation: the output states the refund status is unsupported and the settlement condition is not complete. If the output concludes refunded, the condition is not met.
- Input source wording two. Compare the blank review column with counter C. Expected observation: the output records the review column as blank and the review status as unknown. If the output fabricates a reviewer or a review conclusion, the condition is not met. All three verifications use the paper exercise above as input and were not actually executed.