What the documents look like
Trade returns and claims handle reverse logistics and liability determination after export. The working materials differ from ordinary export declaration files: customer emails, quality inspection reports, customs system records, and insurer claim system records feed into a case file that also holds the return agreement, the claim letter, the quality report, and the return customs declaration. Data arrives case by case rather than on a fixed schedule, and each case is handled on its own.
For operating reports and exception review, these scattered materials must be consolidated into a checkable basis. The HTTP integration step carries the responsibility of pulling data from external systems and sending results back. Fields the documents do not supply remain unknown; category familiarity does not fill them in.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
The HTTP module sends a request to a specified address. Params carry path request parameters and are used mostly with GET requests. Body carries the request payload and is used mostly with POST and PUT requests. Headers carry special information. All three can reference variables through {{}}, drawing on global variables, system variables, and upstream node outputs; the URL can also reference variables. Return values are extracted through JSON path syntax, and the output formatting feature can convert a value into a JSON string when the output type is set to string.
The chat completions interface authenticates with an APIKey. When calling chat/completions, passing body.appId in the request body is recommended. The interface also supports Authorization: Bearer <apiKey>-<appId>, in which case body.appId is not needed. The model, temperature, and similar parameters passed in are ineffective; these fields are determined by the orchestration and do not change with API parameters. The chatId and responseChatItemId fields do not exist in test mode, so an empty value during debugging is an environment difference rather than a business fault.
Retrieval and similarity affect recalled content only. They do not perform permission filtering or entity isolation, and retrieval is not authorization.
Hypothetical drill sample: a trade after-sales staff member prepares an operating review for one return case. The source materials read: "The return agreement states the buyer submitted a return application on 10 March 2025; the goods are 200 electric motors; the return reason is abnormal bearing noise. The claim letter states the claim amount is to be filled in after the quality report confirms it. The quality report states that 6 of 20 sampled units showed abnormal noise, and the report status is draft." The draft sentence to be judged is: "The return reason for this case has been confirmed and the claim amount has been determined." The object of comparison is the correspondence between the states described in the materials and the draft sentence.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centers on this sample and lists settings or implementation checks that the official documents describe. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial, used to compare against the external interface contract or the material states; they are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Value or check content | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Request URL | Fill in per the external interface document; the URL can reference variables | Address of the service that returns the quality report and claim status |
| Request method | Choose per the external interface document | GET for reading, POST for sending back |
| Headers | Authentication credentials injected through secure configuration | Not written into public samples |
| Body | Used only under the corresponding request type; check the JSON structure | Check field by field when sending back return case fields |
| Variable reference | Reference global variables, system variables, and upstream node outputs | Pass in the case identifier and report status |
| Return value extraction | Configure the key per JSON path | Extract the report status and amount fields |
Three common errors
- Treating a "draft" status in the materials as confirmed. The quality report status is draft, while the draft sentence says "the return reason has been confirmed." The input is the report status field; the comparison is draft against confirmed; the observable result is that the two do not match, and the draft sentence is not supported.
- Treating "to be filled in" as determined. The claim letter states the amount is to be filled in after the quality report confirms it, while the draft sentence says "the claim amount has been determined." The input is the amount field in the claim letter; the comparison is to-be-filled against determined; the observable result is that the field is empty, and the draft sentence is not supported.
- Treating an empty
chatIdin test mode as a business fault. In test mode,chatIdandresponseChatItemIddo not exist. The input is a test environment request; the comparison is test mode against a formal session; the observable result is that the missing field is an environment difference and does not constitute a business exception.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source materials and the draft sentence given above; compare the report status field against the "confirmed" wording. If the status is draft, the draft sentence is not supported; record it as pending verification.
- Input the claim letter amount field and the "determined" wording; compare whether the field is empty. If it is to be filled in, the draft sentence is not supported; retain the evidence gap.
- Input a test mode request; compare whether
chatIdandresponseChatItemIdexist. If they do not exist, record it as a test environment difference and do not judge it a business fault. A formal session requires a separately obtained actual value for comparison.
The judgment must concern the same subject, the same period, and the same field. Only mutually exclusive values in the same field constitute a contradiction. A state that is not stated, or evidence that covers only a related stage, is unsupported or pending verification rather than negated or conflicting. A pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating authority; signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts; a quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period. Authorization or effectiveness clauses are not invented to obtain a definite answer, and evidence gaps are retained.