What the documents look like
For document comparison in Refund-only disputes, this page examines FastGPT tool calls. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A refund-only comparison can ask what the application alleges and what dispatch or receipt sources record. Proposed inputs supply the customer statement and warehouse dispatch passage while explicitly lacking receipt evidence. An allegation remains separate from a verified product fact. Describe a reading tool around source status and textual differences, excluding responsibility decisions. Parameters distinguish customer wording from business records without deriving evidential weight or case outcomes from titles.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Proposed material or condition | Evidence to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Source status | Customer claims beside dispatch records | Complaint not promoted to established fact |
| Reported statement | Appeal wording treated as receipt proof | Trace provider and obtain the real record |
| Order mismatch | Sources deliberately concern different orders | Remove mismatch and retain the present gap |
| Invocation check | Actual requests before and after supplementation | Populated parameters do not establish a call |
| Handling result | Separate refund or claim authority | Difference reading is not an approval receipt |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Tool description | Describe purpose, inputs and non-applicable situations. |
Tool parameters | Inspect module and plugin parameters separately. |
Required parameters | The model may not invoke a tool without suitable required inputs. |
Tool connections | Available tools must connect to the calling module. |
Tool-call termination | Termination ends the call without a later AI summary. |
Three common errors
A request may treat a reported statement in appeal material as carrier receipt evidence. Inspect the passage’s provider and citation, then obtain the corresponding record before retesting. Another failure compares different orders: complete-looking inputs still cannot support this dispute. Inspect order correspondence and remove unrelated passages instead of allowing another order’s document to fill the current evidence gap. If a customer application recording submission becomes refunded funds, inspect the application stage, corresponding approval and actual payment-processing record. Comparing application, appeal and receipt passages supplies no evidence of refund receipt.
How to verify the setup
Test absent receipt evidence, a mismatched order and subsequently supplied corresponding sources. Inspect actual invocation, transmitted values and the origin of each difference. Missing suitable required parameters may prevent a call; collect inputs through interaction and check the request without guaranteeing automatic questioning. Termination prevents another AI summary of this call. Refund decisions, supplier claims or stock adjustments require separate authorization and real business responses; reading differences does not establish approval.
| 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 |