What the documents look like
Franchise supervision differs from direct-operated fresh-food ordering because the head office monitors whether franchisees follow execution standards. The data comes from a supervisor app, POS sales, the franchise system, and store photographs, with weekly or monthly updates. The daily documents are store visit forms, franchise contracts, rectification notices, and display standards. The most time-consuming steps are checking displays, verifying head office orders, and tracking rectification.
When these materials enter workflow routing, the page must separate which fields the Form Input node collects, which decisions the User Selection node triggers, and which business actions require a separate system implementation. The store visit form supplies store identity, date, and exception items. The contract supplies the rectification reply deadline. The rectification notice draft supplies the proposed deadline and the requested action. A retrieval result or a collected form value does not authorize sending a notice, writing a record, or synchronizing external status.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The Form Input node is a user interaction node. When triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user completes the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to later nodes. The User Selection node is also a user interaction node. When triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state, the workflow state is recorded, and after the user makes a choice, the node evaluates the choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes record workflow state as their documented behavior; no separate global state-recording switch is described. Collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, decision, or interface nodes. Order writing, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or later process. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise: the store visit form states "Week 2 of March 2025, Store A, refrigerated display temperature record missing, supervisor photographed." The franchise contract states "the franchise store must maintain head office display standards and reply within 5 working days after a rectification notice is issued." The rectification notice draft states "Store A is requested to complete the refrigerated display rectification and reply before March 20, 2025." The draft sentence to be judged is "Store A has confirmed that rectification is complete." That sentence lacks store reply material and remains unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Content for this page | Verification method |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Collect required store visit fields: store, date, exception item | After submission, check whether the three fields pass to later nodes |
| User Selection node | Judge whether the rectification notice has been replied to | After a choice, check whether the "yes" branch executes |
| Interactive state check | Triggering records workflow state | Confirm node behavior; no separate global switch is described |
| Output handoff check | Pass form information to a retrieval or decision node | Compare each output item against the input |
| External action separation | Rectification notice sending, contract status synchronization | Confirm a separate business interface; retrieval does not replace it |
| Hypothetical trial starting value | Rectification reply deadline set to 5 working days | Reason: the contract text states 5 working days; compare against the actual store reply date |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result as authorized execution. Retrieving a franchise contract clause does not mean the contract is effective or rectification is approved. Check the input: the contract text. Compare: whether the contract states an effectiveness condition. Observe: when no effective date is stated, record the item as pending verification.
- Treating a pending review as missing permission. A store visit form in pending review status does not show that the supervisor lacks operating permission. Check the input: the store visit form status field. Compare: the status value against the permission field. Observe: when the permission field is not stated, record the gap.
- Treating a draft sentence as confirmed fact. The draft sentence "Store A has confirmed that rectification is complete" lacks store reply material. Check the input: the rectification notice draft and the store reply record. Compare: whether a reply record exists. Observe: when no reply record exists, judge the sentence as unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the store visit form text from the hypothetical exercise. Compare the store, date, and exception item collected by the Form Input node against the source text. Observe whether the later node receives these three fields after submission.
- Enter the franchise contract text and the rectification notice draft from the hypothetical exercise. Compare whether the deadline "5 working days" in the draft matches the contract text. Observe whether the deadline field passes to the decision node.
- Enter the draft sentence to be judged, "Store A has confirmed that rectification is complete." Compare whether a store reply record exists. Observe whether the system marks the sentence as pending verification. If retrieval returns an empty result, use the paper input [] to check the downstream design; do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].
Retrieval is not authorization. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter. Same-model retrieval association, empty-reference output, and context limits keep their documented conditions. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization need their stated downstream implementation.