What the documents look like
Franchise fee and deposit settlement deals with money and penalty deductions. It does not handle government filing. The working materials are franchise fee invoices, deposit ledgers, deduction notices, and contractual payment schedules. These come from finance systems, franchise contracts, bank statements, and store violation records. Updates arrive monthly and at each deduction, so workflow routing has to split three time-consuming steps—checking contract payment terms, confirming the reason for a deduction, and issuing invoices—into nodes that can be checked one by one.
During handover, materials sit in different states. A ledger entry may be recorded while the deduction reason is still unconfirmed. A payment schedule may list an amount while the invoice has not been issued. A bank statement may show funds received while the contract payment term has not been checked. Workflow routing must pass these states forward as inputs to later nodes. Collected form values are not authorization conclusions.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node is a user interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. After the user fills required information and submits, the node collects the form 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 executes the corresponding "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and trigger execution.
The constraint is that interaction nodes only collect values and branch. They do not approve, execute deductions, or return deposits. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. During operations handover, the authorization state of each material, action, and request must be checked manually. Retrieval and form submission do not constitute authorized execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. the source material reads "Franchisee A, March 2025 franchise fee payment schedule amount is 50,000 yuan, payment term 31 March 2025; the deposit ledger shows A has paid a deposit of 80,000 yuan; the deduction notice draft states that A is proposed to have 2,000 yuan deducted from the deposit due to a store violation, the reason pending confirmation by the franchise management department." Proposed sentence: "A's March 2025 franchise fee is settled and the deposit deduction has been executed." Request to be judged: "Advance A's status to handover complete."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | What it is compared with |
|---|---|---|
| Required fields on the form input node | Franchisee name, fee type, payment term, amount | Compared field by field with the contractual payment schedule |
| Branch on the user selection node | The "yes" branch connects to deduction reason confirmation | Compared with the reason status in the deduction notice draft |
| Interaction state recording | Enters interaction state after triggering | Compared with the documented behavior of the node |
| Output handoff | Form values passed to a later checking node | Compared with the input fields of the later node |
| External action split | Deduction execution marked as requiring a separate interface | Compared with the actual ledger registration status |
Reason for the starting point: these fields map directly to the four document types on this page, which makes field-by-field checking possible. This starting point is a setting for this hypothetical exercise, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating form submission as deduction authorization. Input: A has submitted the form. Compare: whether the deduction notice reason has been confirmed by the franchise management department. Observable result: the reason is still pending confirmation, so form submission does not constitute deduction execution.
- Treating ledger registration as an issued invoice. Input: the deposit ledger shows 80,000 yuan paid. Compare: whether a franchise fee invoice exists. Observable result: the invoice field is missing, so the ledger does not establish invoice status.
- Treating retrieval results as permission filtering. Input: retrieval returns A's fee records. Compare: whether those records fall within the scope the current operator is authorized to access. Observable result: the permission scope is not stated, so retrieval does not perform authorization judgment.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source material and the proposed sentence "A's March 2025 franchise fee is settled and the deposit deduction has been executed." Compare the payment schedule term of 31 March 2025 with the bank statement receipt record. Expected result: settlement may be marked only when the term and the receipt record agree; when they disagree, the item stays pending verification.
- Input the request to be judged, "Advance A's status to handover complete." Compare the deduction reason confirmation status with the deposit ledger registration status. Expected result: advancement may proceed only when the reason is confirmed and the ledger is registered; when either is missing, record the evidence gap.
- Input an explicit paper empty result []. Compare whether the downstream node is designed to accept empty input. Expected result: the downstream produces no deduction or refund action and only records that no match was found.
This page addresses one scope: franchise fee and deposit settlement, operations authorization and handover management, workflow routing. During operations handover, the authorization state of materials, actions, and requests cannot be replaced by retrieval or form submission.