What the documents look like
For staff training in Refund-only disputes, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. Separate dispute excerpts, evaluator comments and missing follow-up replies. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed refund-only service exercise has a buyer alleging one missing item, guidance to inspect order and packing records and an evaluator comment that the follow-up question identifies its object clearly. A learner answer claims warehouse confirmation and an agreed refund. No warehouse reply is supplied, and the comment evaluates a question rather than the dispute outcome. Preserve the source-collection purpose instead of expanding praise for clarity into approval of a conclusion or replacing a buyer allegation with warehouse admission. Product and parcel correspondence also remain unresolved in the supplied text.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Training-source check | Teaching identity and evidence scope | Acceptance action |
|---|---|---|
| Allegation attribution | Buyer statement | Do not make it warehouse admission. |
| Comment object | Clear question | Do not make it endorsed finding. |
| Guidance stage | Sources need checking | Do not call it completed. |
| Missing-item subject | Goods and parcel unverified | Check added correspondence. |
| Handling outcome | Currently absent | Do not supply a decision. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Associated knowledge bases | Knowledge bases associated with one search node must use the same embedding model. |
Citation output | The output is an array; an empty array can continue. |
Citation input handoff | Inspect citations actually received by the answer step. |
Citation display check | Trace displayed sources to their originals. |
Document-validity check | Inspect source identity and applicable version separately. |
Three common errors
First, the buyer allegation may become warehouse confirmation; inspect the speaker and subsequent original records, retaining the allegation’s status. Second, a clarity comment may become an endorsed conclusion; read whether the evaluator addresses a question or finding rather than creating approval from a positive word. Third, guidance to inspect packing may become completed checking; seek actual order and packing material instead of treating a step prompt as execution. These concern speaker, evaluation scope and operation evidence. A complete learner answer cannot establish that every required source was actually supplied.
How to verify the setup
Ask who alleges what, what the comment evaluates and which sources the guidance requests, inspecting actual references. Evaluator-only input establishes no reading of the complaint. The case alone proves neither shortage nor an approved refund. Added hypothetical records must match the exercise’s goods and parcel and remain labelled practice. Empty references require scope and transfer investigation. This lesson determines no responsibility or refund outcome and equates no refund request with an unfulfilled order. Actual conclusions still require their own original evidence rather than a classroom interpretation.