What the documents look like
Refund-only disputes often involve no returned parcel entering the warehouse, so the evidence focuses on shipment, delivery confirmation, and product value. Materials include refund-only applications, shipment proof, delivery confirmation, appeal materials, and their sources are the after-sales backend, carrier tracking, customer service chat, and warehouse outbound records. The update frequency is per order or per day.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
The memory turn count controls how many earlier chat turns the AI may reference at most. Customer service applications usually retain only a small number of history turns. In the chat interface, when chatId is not empty, the session is automatically retrieved from the FastGPT database, the last content in the messages array is used as the user question, and the remaining messages are ignored. Continuing a session and creating a new session use different input methods and must be checked separately.
The system prompt must clearly limit the material scope to shipment proof, delivery confirmation, and appeal materials. The answering task must be limited to order fulfillment and after-sales Q&A. When evidence is missing, the response must state that verification is pending. It is necessary to check the context and reply settings supported by the model, and to test long-document and follow-up combinations. The reply format should be chosen according to downstream handling. When json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirements must be filled in and the returned structure must be verified. When continuous conversation with the knowledge base is required, check coreference resolution and question expansion.
Hypothetical drill sample
The following hypothetical materials are used for this paper-based check and do not involve real customers or real companies.
Material text one: "Order number HX-2024-0315-001. The buyer signed for receipt on March 15, 2024, and carrier tracking shows delivered. The buyer submitted a refund-only application on March 18, reason: item not as described. The warehouse outbound record shows the item for this order was Type A desk lamp, outbound quantity 2."
Material text two: "Customer service chat record: The buyer stated the lamp shade had a crack and uploaded a photo. Customer service replied that shipment proof needed verification. The shipment proof shows quality inspection passed at outbound and no crack record."
Draft sentence to be judged: "Based on the available materials, the item in this order was intact at outbound, and the crack issue raised by the buyer after signing lacks evidence support at the shipment stage. It is recommended to reject the refund-only application."
Checkpoints: the subject is the same order HX-2024-0315-001, the object is Type A desk lamp, quantity 2, the status is signed for and refund-only application pending handling, and the time range is March 15 to March 18, 2024. The authorization boundary is: customer service may only organize materials, and rejecting the application must be performed by the after-sales supervisor.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason for choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Choose a model that supports tool calling and multimodal recognition | It needs to read image links in the chat; compare whether the model capability description includes image recognition |
| Memory turns | Hypothetically set to 6 turns | This order involves multiple follow-ups from application to appeal; compare whether the actual historyPreview covers the three nodes of application, evidence submission, and reply |
| Reply limit | Hypothetically set to 800 | Customer service replies need to fully explain evidence gaps; compare whether truncation appears in the evidence enumeration section |
| Temperature | Hypothetically set low | Customer service scenarios require stable answers; compare answer consistency across multiple requests for the same question |
| Reply format | Keep default | There is currently no downstream process reading a fixed format; choose json_schema later if structured output is needed |
| Multimodal recognition | Enable image recognition | The chat record contains a photo of the lamp shade crack; compare whether the model reads the image content |
Explanation of the hypothetical starting point for memory turns: this order is assumed to generate 6 turns of dialogue from the March 18 application to the March 20 appeal, so it is set to 6 turns to cover the complete process, and it should be adjusted after comparison with the actual number of turns in historyPreview.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval results as an authorization basis. Retrieving shipment proof does not mean customer service has the authority to reject a refund-only application. During checking, compare the quoteList returned by retrieval with the actual operation permission records in the after-sales backend.
- Treating an application pending review as already rejected. In the material text, the refund-only application status is pending handling, while the draft sentence says "recommended to reject." This is a recommendation, not an execution result. During checking, compare the application status field with the actual operation record.
- Treating delivery confirmation as sufficient evidence that the item was intact. The material text shows carrier tracking delivered, and the shipment proof shows quality inspection passed at outbound, but after signing the buyer claims a crack. During checking, compare the signing time with the time the crack was claimed; delivery confirmation only proves delivery.
How to verify the setup
- Input hypothetical material text one and text two above, as well as the draft sentence to be judged, and compare whether the draft sentence presents "recommended to reject" as an executed operation. If the draft sentence contains expressions such as "already rejected" or "rejection completed," then it is inconsistent with the "pending handling" status in the materials. Expected result: the draft sentence retains the "recommended" expression and notes that the after-sales supervisor must perform the operation.
- Input the chat record image link in the hypothetical sample and compare whether the model reads the image content and mentions the lamp shade crack in its answer. If the model answer does not mention the image content, check whether multimodal recognition is enabled and whether the model capability supports image recognition. Expected result: the answer mentions the crack photo uploaded by the buyer and explains the comparison result between that photo and the shipment proof.
- Input order number HX-2024-0315-001 in the hypothetical sample, initiate a follow-up with a non-empty chatId, and compare whether the returned historyPreview contains the three nodes of application, evidence submission, and reply. If historyPreview contains only the most recent turn, check the memory turn setting. Expected result: historyPreview covers the three nodes, and the answer can cite the shipment proof and delivery confirmation from the preceding text.
The above checks are all paper-based reasoning and do not claim to have been actually executed. Missing evidence remains missing, and conclusions pending verification remain pending verification.