What the documents look like
For after-sales 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 marketplace refund flow should distinguish a request, returned-goods arrival, inspection evidence and approval. A proposed record may supply the request and return transport document while warehouse receipt and payment-refund records remain absent. Collect the inquiry and passages, then inspect downstream input so a request has not become refunded and transport material has not become an inspection conclusion. Documents received and operations completed require separate evidence.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Proposed input for this page | Observed acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence types | Request, transport, inspection and approval recorded separately | Received documents do not become completed operations |
| Form input | Request and transport supplied; receipt and refund absent | The recipient preserves the current evidence state |
| Incorrect route | A receipt request enters refund approval | Inspect connection and values, then retest after repair |
| Retest linkage | New evidence, the relevant order and original inquiry | Citations concern the same processing subject |
| Actual refund | A real record from an authorized operation | Approval, payment and closure are verified separately |
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
A source owner may choose to obtain warehouse receipt, inspect product findings or read refund approval. Test the actual destinations. If a receiving-evidence choice reaches a refund-approval route instead, inspect the connection and received values rather than accept continued execution as correct routing. Even with goods-receipt evidence, physical arrival, condition and approval remain different matters. A human choice neither determines responsibility automatically nor grants refund authority. Test a dropped qualification in which the submitted approval passage says that review is pending, but the answer step receives only the approval heading. Compare the complete passage with the received text, locate the omission and repeat the refund-progress question after restoring the state. Repairing that transfer still leaves payment processing dependent on the corresponding payment-side record.
How to verify the setup
After supplementation, repeat the inquiry and trace new material through submission, receipt and the final answer. An actual refund needs an authorized business operation and its real record, linked to the order. Approval wording alone does not establish executed payment. If the interface did not succeed or no operation receipt is available, retain the unconfirmed state. Completed forms, executed nodes or generated explanations cannot independently establish a closed after-sales case.
| 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 |