What the documents look like
Franchise filing management works with the commercial franchise information management system, enterprise licences, store lists and contract ledgers. The category handles legal disclosure and the commerce department system rather than the site engineering that head-office location work involves. Day-to-day documents include the franchise contract, the operations manual, filing materials and information disclosure documents. Data updates happen irregularly or annually, and that frequency does not change the behaviour of this page.
The conversation logs and audit step deals with session identifiers, conversation records and run details. When a franchisor and franchise legal staff hand over operations permissions, they need to distinguish which materials have been submitted, which requests are still awaiting review, and which actions have been completed. The presence of a log shows that a record was produced. Reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements are handled by a complete business solution elsewhere. A log record does not mean a compliance audit has been finished.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity needs to be checked against the target conversation and the business record using chatId, and sessions from different entry points cannot be counted together. When run details from the conversation interface are needed, set detail according to the official contract and inspect responseData. When checking log fields against what the interface actually returns, business data that was not returned cannot be assumed to have been retained in full. Identity fields in test mode may differ, so input, history and returned content are checked separately.
Hypothetical paper exercise. The following is fictional paper material. It does not involve a real customer, a real company or a legitimate identity number.
Material text one: A franchisor head office submitted filing materials on 10 March 2025, and the commerce liaison recorded the status as "awaiting review".
Material text two: The franchise contract ledger between that head office and a franchisee shows a signing date of 5 March 2025, and the contract effectiveness clause states "effective from the date both parties sign".
Material text three: The conversation record interface returned chatId "jmb20250310", dataId "d001", and an empty customTitle.
Draft sentence to be judged: "The filing materials have been approved, the contract has taken effect, and the conversation records have been retained in full."
Check points: the status in material one is awaiting review. Awaiting review does not show a lack of operating permission, and it is not approval. Material two shows a signing date and an effectiveness clause. Signing and contract effectiveness are two different facts, and the effectiveness clause text needs to be checked. Material three shows only a session identifier and a title field. Business data that was not returned cannot be assumed to have been retained in full. None of the three clauses in the draft sentence is supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists, around the sample above, official documented settings or implementation check items relevant to this feature and the primary task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, not official default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical exercise starting point | How to check and why |
|---|---|---|
| appId | "appjm2025" | Check that the appId passed in the request body matches the target application; priority is body.appId, then apiKey-appId, then the appId associated with the apikey. |
| chatId | "jmb20250310" | Check that the session identifier matches the business record, that its length is under 250, and that it is unique. |
| detail | true | Set this when run details are needed; in non-stream mode inspect responseData, in stream mode inspect the event distinction. |
| responseChatItemId | "rci_d001" | Check that it is unique under the current chatId; the interface stores this value in the database. |
| source | "api" | When getting the session list, check source=api to confirm that only sessions created through the API are retrieved. |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | true | When getting the conversation list, check whether custom feedback is read, and set it according to actual need. |
Three common errors
- Treating the "awaiting review" status in material one as approval. The error is merging awaiting review with approval. Executable check: input the text of material one, compare the status field against the word "approval", and observe whether the status explicitly states approval. If it is only awaiting review, record it as unsupported.
- Treating the signing date in material two as contract effectiveness. The error is merging two facts, signing and effectiveness. Executable check: input the text of material two, compare the signing date against the effectiveness clause, and observe whether the effectiveness clause states a condition for taking effect. If it states "effective from the date both parties sign", check whether signing and effectiveness fall at the same point in time, and keep the evidence gap.
- Treating the session identifier in material three as full retention. The error is treating fields returned by the interface as all business data. Executable check: input the text of material three, compare the returned fields against the fields the business record needs, and observe whether the data needed for reconciliation was returned. Record fields that were not returned as unknown, and do not assume they were retained.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the text of material one together with the draft clause "the filing materials have been approved". Compare the status field "awaiting review" with "approval". Observed result: the status field does not state approval, so this clause of the draft sentence is unsupported. The expectation is to record it as unsupported, without claiming that a live test was performed.
- Verification two: input the text of material two together with the draft clause "the contract has taken effect". Compare the signing date with the effectiveness clause. Observed result: the effectiveness clause states "effective from the date both parties sign", so whether signing and effectiveness fall at the same point in time needs checking, and the evidence gap is kept. The expectation is to record it as pending confirmation, without claiming that a live test was performed.
- Verification three: input the text of material three together with the draft clause "the conversation records have been retained in full". Compare the returned fields with the fields the business record needs. Observed result: only chatId, dataId and customTitle were returned, and the data needed for reconciliation was not returned. The expectation is to record it as unknown, without claiming that a live test was performed.
These three verifications apply only to the hypothetical sample on this page and do not constitute a judgment about real records, real requests or real authorisation. Retrieval and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation. The presence of a log does not mean a compliance audit has been completed.