What the documents look like
Refund-only disputes differ from ordinary return-and-refund cases in one decisive way: there is frequently no returned-goods warehouse receipt. The evidence therefore concentrates on dispatch and signed-delivery records, together with proof of the goods' value. The main data sources are the platform after-sales console, carrier tracking, customer-service chat, and warehouse outbound records. The documents handled day to day are refund-only applications, dispatch evidence, signed-delivery proof, and appeal materials. These materials must be collected and passed along by the workflow node by node. Deciding whether a return is required, gathering logistics evidence, and submitting the platform appeal are the three most time-consuming stages.
For product data and selection questions, this means the workflow has to route a dispute according to what the materials actually show, while keeping the difference between a collected value and an authorized business action. A form collects what a person enters; a user selection records which branch was chosen. Neither of those acts writes an order, fills a document, or synchronizes an external status.
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 completes the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted form information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The User Selection node is also a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation likewise enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded. When the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both node types can be added repeatedly and trigger execution. Information collected must be passed explicitly to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and outputs must be compared with inputs item by item. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process; the interaction nodes themselves do not perform those actions. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; verify the identifier first and exclude those that do not match.
Hypothetical drill sample: on 10 June 2025, an after-sales supervisor submits a handover request reading "move order A's refund-only application materials into the appeal process." The source text to be checked reads: "Refund-only application number A, application date 3 June 2025, applicant claims goods not received. Carrier tracking shows delivery signed for on 1 June 2025, signatory field empty. Warehouse outbound record shows dispatch on 30 May 2025." The draft sentence to be assessed reads: "This order already meets the appeal conditions and the platform appeal may be submitted." In this sample the signatory field is empty, whether signed-delivery proof is established remains unsupported, and whether the appeal conditions are met is pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check relevant to this page | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Configure the required information fields; pass them to later nodes after submission | Enters the interaction state and records the workflow state |
| User Selection node | Configure the decision question and the "yes" branch connection | Executes the corresponding branch after the user makes a choice |
| Output handoff check | Pass collected information into later retrieval or judgment nodes | Compare outputs with inputs item by item |
| Retrieval-library identifier check | Verify the vector-model identifier and exclude non-matching libraries | Cross-model association is not permitted |
| External-action division of labour | Order writes, document backfill, and status synchronization connect to separate interfaces | Interaction nodes do not perform these actions |
| Empty-result handoff | Use the paper input [] to check downstream design | Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [] |
Three common errors
- Treating information collected by the Form Input node as business authorization. The form node collects and passes information; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization require downstream implementation. Check the input as the submitted form values, compare it against the authorization requirements of the downstream interface, and observe whether an explicit authorization record exists.
- Treating execution of the User Selection node's "yes" branch as a completed business operation. Branch execution indicates only the direction of the process, not that approval or execution has occurred. Check the input as the branch connection configuration, compare it against the actual business status record, and observe whether the business status has changed.
- Treating a retrieval relevance score as a permission or entity filter. A relevance score does not perform permission filtering, and retrieval is not authorization. Check the input as the retrieval return, compare it against the access-permission list, and observe whether an unauthorized-access record exists.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: using the hypothetical sample above, input the source text and the draft sentence, compare "already meets the appeal conditions" in the draft sentence against the "signatory field empty" record in the source text, and observe whether the conclusion reached is pending verification. If the draft sentence directly asserts that the conditions are met, the assertion is unsupported.
- Verification two: using the hypothetical sample above, input the handover request "move order A's refund-only application materials into the appeal process," compare the requested operation against the current material status, and observe whether an authorization record exists. If no authorization record exists, the request remains pending review and does not constitute approval.
- Verification three: use the paper input [] to check the downstream node design, and observe whether the downstream node's handling of an empty result is explicit. If the downstream node does not define empty-result handling, record it as a design gap and do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [].