What the documents look like
Refund-only disputes commonly proceed without any returned parcel reaching a warehouse, so the evidence emphasis falls on dispatch, delivery confirmation, and the value of the goods. The working materials combine the after-sales platform application record, carrier tracking, customer-service chat, and warehouse outbound records. Updates arrive per order and per day. The day-to-day documents are the refund-only application, dispatch proof, signed-receipt proof, and appeal materials.
For the conversation logs and audit step, the question is narrower: how one dispute is recorded inside the customer-service conversation, whether the matching session can be recovered by chatId, what the run detail retains, and which business conclusions still require separate checking. A chatId identifies one session under one application. A dataId identifies one conversation inside that session. The presence of a log and the completion of a compliance audit are separate matters.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity follows chatId. When reconciling, bind chatId to the business record and count sessions from different entry points separately. Where run detail is needed, the documented contract sets detail=true; non-streaming results sit in responseData, streaming results are distinguished through event, and flowResponses carries complete node responses. The fields actually returned define what is available. Business data that does not appear in the response cannot be assumed to be fully retained.
Retrieval and similarity affect recall ordering. They do not perform permission or entity isolation, and a retrieval result is not an authorization basis. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements belong to the complete business solution.
Hypothetical drill sample: a refund-only application, subject is the after-sales supervisor, object is the buyer conversation for Order A, status is "refund-only application pending review", effective scope is 1 March 2026 to 7 March 2026. The material text reads: "Order A was dispatched on 2 March; carrier tracking shows delivery signed on 4 March. The buyer submitted a refund-only application on 5 March, stating the goods were not received. The customer-service conversation chatId is test-chat-001 and the dataId is test-data-001." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This order has completed signed delivery, so the refund-only application should be rejected." That sentence treats a signed-delivery fact as equivalent to a rejection conclusion. The evidentiary gap between signed delivery and the dispute determination, including goods value and the stated application reason, remains open.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Value and source | Purpose and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| appId | Passed in the request body, documented parameter | Locates the target application; does not replace session identity |
| chatId | Hypothetical sample test-chat-001, length under 250 | Binds the target session; different entry points are checked separately |
| dataId | Hypothetical sample test-data-001 | Locates one conversation under that session |
| detail | Set to true returns intermediate values | Non-streaming reads responseData; streaming reads event |
| responseChatItemId | When passed, becomes the response message ID | Must be unique under the same chatId |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | Optional when reading the conversation list | Reads custom feedback; does not change business status |
Three common errors
- Treating an identical chatId as proof that business records are aligned. Input two sessions from different entry points, compare the binding between chatId and the business document, and observe whether one chatId maps to more than one dispute.
- Treating a retrieval hit as permission or entity filtering. Input an unrelated query, compare the returned entries against the target business scope, and observe whether records outside that dispute appear.
- Writing a signed-delivery trace directly as a rejection conclusion. Input the sample material text and the draft sentence, compare the signed-delivery fact against the evidence needed for the dispute determination, and observe whether the draft omits checks on goods value or the stated application reason.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample chatId=test-chat-001 and dataId=test-data-001, compare the session record against the business document on subject, object, and period, and observe whether all three point to the same dispute. Record the gap when they do not align.
- Input a request with detail=true, compare the fields actually returned in responseData or flowResponses against the fields needed for reconciliation, and observe whether missing fields are marked unknown. Do not treat an unreturned field as retained.
- Input the draft sentence "This order has completed signed delivery, so the refund-only application should be rejected", compare its scope against the material text, and observe whether the conclusion exceeds what the signed-delivery fact supports. Keep the matter pending verification when it does.