What the documents look like
Refund-only disputes differ from ordinary return-and-refund cases in that there is frequently no returned parcel entering the warehouse. The evidence therefore concentrates on dispatch and delivery confirmation, together with the value of the goods. The main data sources are the platform after-sales backend, carrier tracking, customer-service chat, and warehouse outbound records. The routine documents are the refund-only application, dispatch proof, delivery confirmation, and appeal materials. The supplied brief gives an update frequency of per order and daily; this page does not derive batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms from that frequency.
The task here is comparison of contract and transaction materials. It aligns the subject, object, status, and validity scope recorded across those documents, then judges whether a proposed sentence or a handover request can be supported by the materials already held. The workflow routing step keeps material collection, comparison judgment, and downstream action separate. The Form Input node enters an interaction state when triggered, collects required information, and passes that information to later nodes after submission. The User Selection node evaluates the user's choice and executes the corresponding "yes" branch. The interaction state is recorded by the interaction node; no separate global state-recording switch is described. Retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorization. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
A hypothetical drill sample is set out here for verification purposes only. A store after-sales supervisor receives a refund-only application on 10 June 2025, order number A-0610, in which the buyer claims the goods were not received. The material text is: the outbound record states "goods X, one item, dispatched 3 June, carrier waybill C-88"; the carrier tracking states "delivered 5 June, signed for by Li Moumou"; the customer-service chat states "buyer said on 9 June that the parcel was not received and requested a refund-only". The proposed sentence to be judged is: "This order was signed for, the buyer's claim does not hold, and the refund-only application is directly rejected." The subject and object of the proposed sentence match the materials, but whether the signatory and the buyer are the same person is not stated, and the boundary of authority to reject is not stated. The item therefore remains pending verification.
Three constraints follow for routing. First, collection and comparison are separate stages: a form submission supplies values, while the comparison node aligns subject, object, status, and validity scope against the source text. Second, the interaction state belongs to the interaction node and is recorded there; the documentation does not describe a global state-recording switch, so routing should not assume one. Third, the routing output is a comparison conclusion passed to a later business interface. Writing to the order, backfilling documents, and synchronizing external status are not performed by the form or selection nodes and need their stated downstream implementation.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Hypothetical starting point and reason for this page |
|---|---|---|
| Form Input node | Interaction node | Collects order number, dispute type, and material list; each collected value is checked item by item against the comparison node output |
| User Selection node | Interaction node | Used for the "materials complete / materials needed" branch; each "yes" branch connection is verified one by one |
| Material comparison node | Processing node | Aligns the four fields of subject, object, status, and validity scope against the source material text |
| Retrieval input | Input item | A paper input of [] is used to check the empty-result handling design; no claim is made that a fictional rule must return [] |
| Output handover | Interface item | Passes the comparison conclusion to a later business interface; writing and synchronization need separate implementation |
| Manual verification | Human action | Identity between signatory and buyer, and the boundary of authority to reject, are checked manually and gaps are recorded |
The comparison node is a processing node, not an authorization step. The retrieval input row exists to test how downstream nodes behave when a paper input of [] is supplied; it does not assert that any query returns an empty set. The output handover row records where the conclusion goes, not that any write has occurred. The manual verification row records a human action and its recorded gap, not an approval.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. In the sample, retrieving the delivery tracking does not mean authority to reject has been granted. Where the boundary of authority is not stated, the only correct output is a recorded gap.
- Treating a delivery event as signature by the buyer in person. The material states "signed for by Li Moumou" and does not state that this person is the buyer. The judgment requires same-subject comparison and cannot directly conclude that the claim does not hold.
- Treating the interaction node's state record as a global switch. Form Input and User Selection trigger an interaction state and record it. The documentation does not describe a global state-recording switch, so routing should not invent that configuration.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the three source sentences and the proposed sentence from the hypothetical sample, then compare the four fields of subject, object, status, and validity scope. If identity between the signatory and the buyer is not stated, the output should be marked pending verification and should not output a rejection conclusion. The expected observation is a pending-verification marker; the failure branch is a rejection conclusion produced without same-subject evidence.
- Enter a paper input of [] to check the empty-result handling. Observe whether downstream nodes follow the empty-input branch design. No claim is made that a fictional rule returns []. The expected observation is that the downstream branch is selected by the empty-input design; the failure branch is a downstream node that assumes a non-empty result.
- Verify each "yes" branch connection of the User Selection node one by one. Enter the two choices "materials complete" and "materials needed", and observe whether the branch direction matches expectation. Interaction waiting and state recording follow the documentation. No submission count, automatic judgment, or snapshot guarantee is asserted. The expected observation is that each choice follows its intended branch; the failure branch is a choice that reaches a branch other than the one intended.
These checks concern the named primary task of comparing contract and transaction materials. They do not extend to identity certification, report analysis, or any other task. Where a document field is not provided, it remains unknown. A pending request is not an approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.