What the documents look like
Franchise filing management handles legal disclosure and the commerce department system. It does not handle the engineering of a specific storefront. The daily documents are franchise contracts, operations manuals, filing materials and information disclosure documents. Their sources are the commercial franchise information management system, enterprise licenses, store lists and contract ledgers. In cross-border material and multilingual retrieval, a Chinese original and a translation of the same contract may sit side by side, and a store list may contain overseas addresses. Retrieval therefore needs to separate checks by language and by document type. Material updates are irregular or annual; this page does not depend on any sync frequency.
Constraints at the model connections step
Multilingual retrieval requires an index model that can produce vectors for both Chinese and English text. The system needs at least one language model and one index model to work normally. A model ID is the value of the model field in the request body and is globally unique; the model name is for display only. One model can be configured in different channels to achieve load balancing. Channel priority ranges from 1 to 100, and a larger value is more likely to be selected first. Model status probing applies only to currently enabled system models; disabled models do not take part in probing and produce no history.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a franchisor headquarters legal team prepares a retrieval request over a bilingual franchise contract ledger. The supplied source text for checking is: "Party A grants Party B the right to operate an 'Example Brand' franchise store in Jing'an District, Shanghai, with a contract term from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2028." A separate English disclosure document states: "The franchisor grants the franchisee the right to operate in Jing'an District, Shanghai." The draft sentence to be judged is: "The franchise contract term is three years and covers Jing'an District." This sample only illustrates a checking method and does not represent a real customer or a completed business action.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table lists only documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this page's main task. The hypothetical trial starting values are for this paper comparison only and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting value | Object of check and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AIPROXYAPIENDPOINT | The AI Proxy service root address, without /v1 | Compare with the actual deployment address; confirm it contains no /v1 or /chat/completions |
| AIPROXYAPITOKEN | A non-empty administrator token | Compare with the server configuration; confirm it matches and is not replaced by an application API key |
| Index model | One index model enabled that supports Chinese and English | Check the Chinese and English sample text separately; confirm the same model handles both languages |
| Model ID | Consistent with the model field in the channel | Compare with the model value in the request body; confirm it is globally unique and mapped correctly |
| Channel priority | Set to 50 for this hypothetical trial | Compare with the priority value of another channel; confirm the selection order matches expectation |
| Model status probing | Enabled only for enabled models | Compare with the enabled list; confirm disabled models produce no probe records |
Three common errors
- Treating a similarity score as a permission or entity filter. Retrieval similarity does not exclude unauthorized records and does not isolate materials belonging to different franchise entities. Check: input the Chinese and English source passages from the sample and observe whether the returned results contain contract fragments from another entity; if they do, the filter is not in effect.
- Jointly associating vectors across different index models. Vectors generated by different index models cannot be jointly associated. Check: compare the model identifiers of the two libraries; if the identifiers differ, exclude joint retrieval and record the actual observation.
- Treating a pending-review state as granted authorization. The contract term in the sample draft sentence comes from the source text, but if a field has only related-stage evidence it should be marked as unsupported. Check: compare each field against the source text; only a clear mutual exclusion of the same subject, same period and same field counts as a contradiction, otherwise record it as pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- For the sample source text and draft sentence, input the Chinese and English passages and compare whether "three years" and "Jing'an District" in the draft sentence match the start and end dates and the district in the source text. If they match, the condition is met; if the draft sentence states an authorization scope not present in the source text, mark it as unsupported.
- For the empty-result branch, use a paper input of an empty array to check the downstream design and observe whether the downstream handles it as an empty result. Do not claim that a fabricated rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty array.
- For model status probing, compare the enabled model list with the probe records and observe whether disabled models show probe entries. If entries appear, the probe scope configuration is incorrect. All of the above are paper checks; no deployment or test has actually been executed.