What the documents look like
For after-sales questions in Refund-only disputes, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. Request closure and supplementary appeal evidence remain separate from actual transaction outcomes. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed refund-only aftersales exercise contains an entry saying this request closed, appeal evidence marked supplementary material being processed and no financial record in the packet. A question about receipt of a refund needs an actual transaction result. Closure identifies a request stage and supplementary processing identifies appeal work; neither supplies that result. Request closure can coexist with continued evidence handling, so nearby status terms cannot be merged into one outcome. Funds returning remains a separate evidence question that closure cannot affirm or deny by itself. The closure reason is also absent from the supplied wording. Its meaning may require the request-handling explanation itself. Establish the closed subject and stated basis before comparing it with later transaction material; withdrawal, rejection and completed refund must not be selected as an invented explanation for the closure.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Task check | Material condition | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Request stage | This request closed | Retain the particular request scope. |
| Appeal subject | Supplementary material being processed | Keep distinct from request stage. |
| Receipt evidence | Actual financial record absent | Obtain the transaction result. |
| Title verification | Refund-result title may lack outcome evidence | Check actual wording and document role. |
| Coverage branches | Empty references or missing transaction evidence | Inspect transfer or evidence content accordingly. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Associated knowledge bases | Knowledge bases associated with one search node must use the same embedding model. |
Citation output | The output is an array; an empty array can continue. |
Citation input handoff | Inspect citations actually received by the answer step. |
Citation display check | Trace displayed sources to their originals. |
Document-validity check | Inspect source identity and applicable version separately. |
Three common errors
One common error is using request status to answer receipt of funds. Another is using ongoing supplementary work to claim that the original request remains open. The first lacks a transaction result; the second confuses request and appeal subjects. If a FastGPT citation array contains only supplementary evidence text, its coverage does not extend to receipt. A source titled refund result still needs its actual wording checked if it contains only request registration. Missing financial material does not establish that no refund occurred or that receipt definitely has not happened.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance questions should separate the request stage, appeal-evidence progress and evidence of funds received. Match each answer to its material without substituting status names. Identify the transaction result still needed for receipt, avoiding unsupported amounts or timing promises. Inspect whether supplied citations retain the scope of this particular request so another event does not contribute an unrelated outcome. Empty references require checking source scope and transfer. That differs from populated references lacking financial evidence, and neither condition can complete the factual conclusion without relevant supporting material.