What the documents look like
Franchise fee and deposit settlement deals with funds and breach deductions. It does not handle government filing for franchise registration, which is a separate compliance activity. The working materials are franchise fee invoices, deposit ledgers, deduction notices, and contract payment schedules. Their sources are the finance system, the franchise contract, bank statements, and store violation records. Updates occur monthly and each time a deduction takes place.
These facts shape the forms used in store service and internal training. A form collects the fields that appear in the documents above, such as the deduction reason, the contract payment period, and the direction of the deposit balance. The form itself only gathers values that a user enters; after submission it passes those values to later nodes. It does not carry a business database function of its own.
Constraints at the interactive forms step
The form input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state, the workflow state is recorded, and execution waits until the user completes the interaction. After the user submits the required information, the node collects the entered values and passes them to later nodes. The user selection node also enters an interaction state; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and runs the corresponding branch.
Field validation, business approval, write-back, and batch operations are implemented in external systems or later nodes as needed. The form does not perform authorization decisions. Retrieval is not authorization, and a similarity score is not a category, entity, or permission filter.
Hypothetical drill sample: a franchise contract payment schedule page states, "Party A shall pay the second installment of the franchise fee of RMB 80,000 before April 10, 2025; the deposit ledger balance as of March 31, 2025 is RMB 50,000." A draft sentence for internal training reads, "Submission of a deduction notice by the franchisee is deemed consent to deduct from the deposit." This draft treats a submission action as consent to a deduction. The source material does not state such a consent clause, so the sentence is not supported and requires manual review of the contract text with the evidence gap preserved.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Documented node | Collects fields such as franchise fee amount, payment period, and deduction reason; passes them after submission |
| Required-field check | Implementation check | Tests the sample's RMB 80,000, April 10, 2025, and RMB 50,000 one by one for missing and completed entries |
| User selection node | Documented node | Designs branches for whether the deduction reason is established and continues based on the user's choice |
| Interaction state wait | Documented behavior | After the node triggers, state is recorded and execution waits; it continues after the interaction completes |
| Downstream division of work | Implementation check | Approval, write-back, and invoice issuance are implemented in external systems or later nodes |
The hypothetical starting point for this trial is three required fields. This number is chosen because the sample text provides only three verifiable values: an amount, a date, and a balance. The comparison method is to delete each field in turn and observe whether the node blocks submission. This starting point is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as business consent. The sample draft sentence "submission of a deduction notice is deemed consent to deduct from the deposit" treats collection as authorization. The form only collects values; a consent clause needs separate contract evidence.
- Treating the user selection node as a personnel directory or business data selector. This node only runs branches based on the choice made. It does not provide franchisee identity or permission filtering.
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorized execution. The same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library only constrains the association scope; it does not exclude unauthorized records. Business approval and database writes require downstream implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample text above and the draft sentence. Compare whether "submission is consent" matches a consent clause stated in the contract. If the contract has no such clause, the draft sentence is not supported and is recorded as an evidence gap.
- In the form input node, delete the RMB 80,000 field and submit. Compare whether the node enters the interaction state and blocks continuation. Then complete the field and submit, and compare whether the values pass to later nodes. The expected behavior described by the documentation is waiting for interaction and then continuing; no actual test is claimed.
- For the user selection node, input the two options "deduction reason established" and "not established" and compare the branch taken. For an empty result, input the explicit paper value [] and check whether the downstream design handles it as no data. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
This page addresses only franchise fee and deposit settlement, store service and internal training, and forms and interaction. At operational handover, which materials, operations, and requests sit in which authorization state must be clear; retrieval and forms are not authorization execution.