What the documents look like
For product questions in Marketplace returns, this page examines FastGPT workflow routing. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
A product-issue statement in a refund request can show what this feedback says. It does not represent specifications for every item of the same model. A proposed input may retain the customer’s wording, relevant product-source identity and selection question separately. After submission, inspect that separation downstream so an individual colour-description complaint has not become a definitive model-wide property. The request reason also does not establish an assigned product responsibility.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Proposed input for this page | Observed acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Feedback scope | Customer wording and the relevant product identity | An individual statement does not become a model-wide specification |
| Selection handoff | Feedback, product sources and the property question | The recipient does not merge their meanings |
| Evidence routes | Read the item record, obtain instructions or hand over | Received sources match the selected action |
| Images and gaps | Only photographs supplied or new material not received | Verify processing separately and retain missing support |
| External actions | Actual listing, refund or warehouse operation record | Inspect authorization and business outcomes independently |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Form input node | Submitted form values pass to subsequent steps. |
User-selection node | Execution follows the connected selected branch. |
Interaction-state check | Inspect waiting and post-submission states. |
Output handoff check | Compare values passed between steps. |
External-operation responsibility | External business operations require an implementation. |
Three common errors
Where inspection photos or written findings exist, establish their subject before a source owner chooses to inspect the item evidence, obtain original product instructions or hand the question over. Test each connected route and received content. If only images are supplied, their conversion into readable evidence needs a separate implementation; a form does not perform image recognition automatically. Choosing a photograph does not establish a quality finding, and its interpretation still needs appropriate review. An inspection image without an identifiable connection to the item cannot support a product-wide statement about that model. Inspect the image caption, the application’s item name and the scope of the supplied material. Distinguish observation of one item from model documentation. The workflow can collect those links, while a picture’s existence alone does not establish its applicable scope.
How to verify the setup
Keep one property question fixed while comparing the request, added instructions and citations, checking for complaints, inspection material and product descriptions merged into one conclusion. If a new source has not arrived, retain its specific gap rather than reuse the same feedback as supplementary evidence. Listing amendments, refund approval or warehouse-record updates need separate authorization and operation results. Completing the selection answer does not establish those external actions.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Refund Application, Return Logistics Order, Quality Inspection Photos and Refund Approval |
| Candidate sources | Platform After-Sales Backend, Customer Service Chat, WMS Receiving and Payment Refund Records |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |