What the documents look like
For procurement in Refund-only disputes, this page examines FastGPT HTTP integrations. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
Refund-only dispute material can identify an item and fulfillment question for procurement review, without establishing supplier responsibility. Proposed inputs include the complaint passage, a warehouse dispatch statement and an absent supplier response. Inspect whether the actual external contract organizes records by order, dispatch or supplier before selecting method and references. Source identities require supported correspondence; after-sales and procurement systems are not assumed to be inherently connected.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Object | Proposed input | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint status | Customer wording in the refund application | Not promoted to a verified product fact |
| Warehouse correspondence | Dispatch record and item description | Missing linkage is not guessed |
| Response scope | External delivery receipt statement | Not expanded into supplier agreement |
| Supplier gap | No response for this inquiry supplied | The answer retains unresolved matters |
| Further handling | Proposed claim or procurement adjustment | Authorization and business result checked separately |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Request address and method | The request address and method follow the external contract. |
Params and Headers | Inspect parameters, headers and authentication separately. |
| Body | Where a JSON body is used, validate its structure against the external contract. |
Variable references | Variables can come from global, system or upstream outputs. |
Debug identity fields | Test mode lacks chatId and responseChatItemId. |
Three common errors
A complaint’s product wording without correspondence to the warehouse record leaves a gap before the request. Similar names cannot replace that evidence. If the response supplies delivery information but the answer asserts supplier agreement, compare the passage with the added judgment and remove unsupported responsibility wording. Also inspect whether the previous step transmitted the customer’s allegation as a verified product condition, repairing that source characterization before retesting.
How to verify the setup
Retain separate origins for complaint, warehouse material and supplier response, inspecting what each query actually retrieves. Keep the missing supplier answer explicit. Credentials remain outside public examples, and a body follows the external contract only. Supplier claims, procurement adjustments and refunds each need separate authority and business results. This HTTP reading establishes neither those operations nor a resolved procurement issue merely because a dispute was submitted.
| 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 |