What the documents look like
Returned-goods inspections handle reverse parcels and item grading. They do not handle outbound picking for new orders. The working materials for this category are the return warehouse receipt, inspection photographs, the grade decision table, and the resale listing form. Data arrives from the WMS returns module, platform after-sales systems, carrier returns, and the inspection bench, with updates recorded per item and per day. After-sales warehouses, inspectors, and inventory administrators use conversation logs during order fulfilment and after-sales question handling to check the session records and run details of a specific return inspection. Inspection conclusions feed into refund disputes and inventory contamination, so log retention and field completeness affect how responsibility can be traced.
Two facts shape this page. First, the object under review is a reverse parcel and its assigned grade, so every log check must tie back to a specific return receipt rather than to outbound activity. Second, the materials are produced per item and per day, so a conversation record is meaningful only when its session identity matches the same return receipt that the receipt, photographs, and grade table describe.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample is used throughout this page. A return warehouse receipt records: return number RT-0001, item a folding chair, inspector grade B resalable, date 10 March 2025, quantity 2 units. An inspection photograph for the same batch is annotated: scratch on the seat surface, structure unaffected. A draft sentence awaiting review reads: "This return has passed inspection and completed resale listing." The source materials state only that the grade is B resalable. They do not state that a resale listing form was generated or that a listing action was carried out. The draft sentence therefore exceeds what the source supports.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity needs to be checked against chatId together with the business record, and sessions from different entry points are not counted together. When run details are required, detail is set according to the official contract and responseData is inspected; business data that is not returned cannot be assumed to have been retained in full. Identity fields in a test mode may differ from a formal call, so input, history, and returned content are checked separately. The existence of a log does not by itself constitute a compliance audit. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements are handled by a complete business plan elsewhere.
The interaction node behaviour matters here. When a workflow reaches an interaction node, the call returns directly. With stream enabled, the interaction configuration is read from data.interactive under the interactive event. With stream disabled, it is read from the interactive element inside choices[].message.content. The interactive object returned to an external caller is a display configuration containing type and params; internal run-state fields such as entryNodeIds, memoryEdges, nodeOutputs, and nodeResponseId are not returned. If an internal children, loop, or tool wrapper interaction is hit, the interface returns the deepest user-facing interaction node. Continuing after an interaction uses the same interface, with chatId kept consistent. For a form input, the entered values are serialised as a string and placed in messages, with object keys matching the form keys. A form collects values. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronisation require their stated downstream implementation.
Retrieval association is limited by the documented conditions. Same-model retrieval association, empty-reference output, and context limits keep their documented conditions. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorised records. Retrieval is not authorisation.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists settings or implementation checks that the official documents describe, tied to the hypothetical sample above. The values are starting points for this paper exercise, chosen so that they can be compared against the actual returned values of the same field. They are not official default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value | Check method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | RT-0001-001 | Compare against the return receipt number to confirm the session belongs to the same return. |
| detail | true | Read module run details from responseData, and compare with the response when detail is false. |
| appId | the application ID for this app | Check against the key authentication path to confirm the session belongs to the target application. |
| responseChatItemId | RT-0001-001-A | Check uniqueness under the same chatId so that the response message ID is not repeated. |
| stream | false | Non-streaming allows direct reading of choices and responseData, and is compared with the streaming event branch. |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | true | When reading the conversation list, check whether the custom feedback field is returned with the record. |
Three common errors
- Treating the photograph annotation "scratch on the seat surface, structure unaffected" as evidence that resale listing is complete. The photograph supports an appearance description only; it does not support a listing action. The check takes the photograph text and the draft sentence as input, compares whether the draft sentence contains a completion state such as "has been listed" that the source does not state, and the observable result is that the draft sentence contains an unsupported statement.
- Writing the B grade on the return warehouse receipt as an approved refund. Grade decision and refund approval are different facts. The check takes the receipt text and a draft sentence containing "refund approved" as input, compares the two sets of fields, and the observable result is that the source has no approval field and the draft sentence exceeds its scope.
- Using a chatId from a test mode to check a formal business record. Test identity fields may differ from a formal call. The check takes the test session chatId and the formal return receipt number as input, compares their ownership, and the observable result is that the identifiers do not match and the session must be excluded.
How to verify the setup
- Take the hypothetical sample text above and the draft sentence "This return has passed inspection and completed resale listing" as input. Compare whether the draft sentence contains a completion action that the source does not state. The observable result is that the draft sentence contains "completed resale listing" while the source states only "grade B resalable", so the sentence is judged unsupported. A pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not an execution.
- Take two requests, one with detail set to true and one with detail set to false, as input. Compare whether responseData and module run details appear in the returned structure. The observable result is that responseData is returned when detail is true and is not returned when detail is false, which confirms the path for reading run details.
- Take two requests under the same chatId with the same responseChatItemId as input. Compare the returned result and the database record. The observable result is that uniqueness must be checked manually; if a duplicate appears, it is recorded as pending verification, and no automatic rejection by the system is assumed. Without a documented error code or an actual observation, the comparison is described and the outcome remains unknown.
Across all three checks, missing evidence stays missing. The sample materials do not state that a resale listing form exists, that a refund was approved, or that any listing action was carried out. The checks therefore identify unsupported statements rather than confirming completion.