What the documents look like
For copy drafting in Refund-only disputes, this page examines FastGPT context limits. Inspect the current dispute’s pending condition and historical orders before drafting its progress. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the context limits step
A proposed service note says the buyer’s description has been received, the decision remains under review, and this text does not mean a refund is complete. The task drafts a progress explanation for that dispute. Inspect whether the current input includes the pending condition and whether history concerns a different, closed order. This is hypothetical wording, without real customer history or platform rules. Receiving a description must remain distinct from completing a refund, even when the next request asks for a shorter announcement.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Context check | Material in this test | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Current subject | The dispute note remains pending | Borrow no closed-order status. |
| Complete input | Receipt wording and pending condition | Compare source and actual request. |
| History comparison | Hold this note constant | Trace referents and added completion claims. |
| Separate lengths | Citation tokens versus reply limit | Inspect missing input beyond output length. |
| Structured acceptance | Parse, then trace status evidence | Valid structure executes no business action. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Model context | Use the actual model’s accepted context scope. |
Reply length | The reply limit differs from the context window. |
Knowledge-reference limit | Knowledge citation limits are token-based. |
History-input check | Compare empty-history and populated-history inputs. |
Structured-output handoff | Validate parsing, then inspect support for field values. |
Three common errors
- If a lost pending sentence turns receipt of a description into refund acceptance, retain the note, actual request and draft to locate the omission.
- If history lends a closed order’s outcome to this dispute, hold the current note constant while comparing history conditions and the order referent.
- If the pending condition reaches input but structured output says complete, validate parsing and then inspect status evidence. Parsable output executes no refund.
How to verify the setup
For acceptance, trace the draft’s subject, completed actions and pending matters back to the actual received wording. If structured output is requested, validate parsing before inspecting evidence for its status values. Correct structure executes no refund. Repeat the original question after obtaining the actual decision, distinguishing source additions from history-setting changes. Missing records can become a request for evidence rather than an invented outcome. Publication and dispute handling require their own subsequent actions; this test neither publishes an announcement nor alters an order.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Refund-Only Application, Proof of Shipment, Proof of Receipt and Appeal Materials |
| Candidate sources | Platform After-Sales Backend, Carrier Tracking, Customer Service Chat and Warehouse Outbound Records |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |