What the documents look like
For document comparison in Refund-only disputes, this page examines FastGPT document chunking. Request reasons and handling opinions occupy different roles and must not merge into a finding. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the document chunking step
A proposed refund-only comparison form has a request-reason column saying description mismatch and a handling-opinion column saying material verification pending. A header identifies the left column as the applicant statement. A question about a confirmed mismatch needs both speaker role and handling state preserved during parsing. The reason is a claim, while the opinion remains pending review. A block containing description mismatch alone loses attribution and could make the phrase appear to be a conclusion already reached by the handling process rather than an assertion requiring checking.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Original or chunk check | Specific source relationship | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Statement role | Left column is applicant statement | Keep header with reason. |
| Handling state | Right column verification pending | Do not turn into confirmed fact. |
| Row and column link | Current request and its opinion | Inspect cross-record mismatches. |
| Question coverage | Separate claim, opinion and finding | Inspect support from each returned block. |
| Opinion update | Processing and index for revised row | Retest continued return of old state. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Original-document check | Compare original files with parsed output. |
Chunk completeness | Keep conditions traceable to their subjects. |
Data and indexes | Retain original-data and index evidence separately. |
Sample retrieval | Retest literal wording and natural questions. |
Post-update check | Inspect training or index state after updates. |
Three common errors
One failure separates the header note from the reason and turns the applicant statement into a review finding. Another column-parsing error attaches pending verification to another request, removing the current entry state. Compare header scope, row and column identity and actual blocks to locate lost source role or cross-record pairing. An index can help retrieve the reason term but a match cannot establish its truth. The packet does not supply a financial-action result, and reading its layout cannot replace an actual responsibility or evidence assessment.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance should ask what the applicant states, what the handling opinion says and whether a review finding exists. Returned blocks should provide different coverage for each question. Preserve the claim and pending state, identifying the actual finding still needed for the final question. If a revised form adds an opinion, inspect processing and indexes for that entry before retesting; upload is not replacement evidence. Retain original, parsed and cited correspondence so that continued use of the old state or another request outcome remains visible rather than disappearing inside a general form summary.
| 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 |