What the documents look like
Seller ratings work follows consumer feedback that arrives after fulfillment. The working materials named for this category are negative-review handling records, experience-score details, service diagnostic reports, and rectification ledgers. Data sources include platform experience scores, marketplace service indicators, after-sales reviews, and customer-service systems, with daily or weekly updates.
For operating reports and exception reviews, the HTTP module takes what an external interface returns, parses it, and hands the parsed values to later nodes. A returned value is raw material for comparison. It does not confirm a negative-review attribution conclusion, and it does not show that a rectification step was carried out. The document set also treats retrieval and interface returns as separate from authorization: business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
The HTTP module sends a request to a target address. Params carry path request parameters, Body carries the request body, and Headers carry special information. All three can reference variables through {{}}. Variables come from global variables, system variables, and upstream node outputs. System variables include appId, chatId, responseChatItemId, variables, cTime, and histories. The chatId and responseChatItemId values do not exist in test mode. Return values are extracted with JSON path syntax, and output formatting can convert JSON into a string.
The chat interface uses APIKey authentication. When calling chat/completions, passing body.appId in the request body is recommended, and Authorization: Bearer <apiKey>-<appId> is also supported. Passed fields such as model and temperature have no effect. Retrieval or an interface return does not constitute authorization.
Hypothetical drill sample: on 10 June 2025, a store operator reviews experience-score details and finds a negative-review handling record whose text reads "after-sales for this order is complete, consumer feedback is recorded, handling status is pending supplementary evidence." The rectification ledger for the same day reads "corresponding rectification item status is pending review." A proposed handover request reads: "Please use the HTTP interface to synchronize this negative-review handling record to the external customer-service system and mark it as rectification complete." The subject is the operator, the object is the handling record above, the current status is pending supplementary evidence and pending review, and the authorization boundary is not stated.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Request address and method | Fill in per the external interface document; the address may reference variables | Compare item by item against the external interface contract |
| Params and Headers | Authorization uses Bearer plus a credential reference | Check where the credential is injected; keep it out of public samples |
| Body | Used only under the matching request type; check the JSON structure | Compare field by field against the interface document |
| Variable references | Reference global variables, system variables, or upstream node outputs | Check the actual passed values one by one |
| Return-value extraction | Configure keys with JSON path syntax | Compare against the interface response structure |
| Debug identity fields | chatId and responseChatItemId do not exist in test mode | Separate debug empty values from business faults |
The numeric starting point applies only to this hypothetical drill. It was chosen to make field-by-field comparison with the interface document convenient, and it is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating pending supplementary evidence and pending review as rectification complete. In the sample, the handling status is pending supplementary evidence and the rectification item status is pending review, while the draft sentence says "mark it as rectification complete." The input and the draft disagree on the status field, and the comparison result is that the draft is not supported by the materials.
- Treating an interface return as authorization to act. The sample does not state that the operator holds authorization to synchronize to the external customer-service system, while the draft directly requests synchronization. The input lacks an authorization basis, and the comparison result is that the authorization boundary remains to be verified.
- Treating an empty chatId or empty responseChatItemId in test mode as a business fault. The documents state that these two fields do not exist in test mode. When the input comes from test mode, the comparison should record a debug-environment difference rather than judge an interface anomaly.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample text "handling status is pending supplementary evidence" together with the draft sentence "mark it as rectification complete." Compare the values of the same status field. When the draft value and the material value differ, the draft is judged unsupported.
- Input the sample text "corresponding rectification item status is pending review" together with the draft sentence "mark it as rectification complete." Compare the rectification item status field. The material reads pending review and the draft reads complete, so the draft is judged inconsistent with the material status.
- Input the draft sentence "Please use the HTTP interface to synchronize this negative-review handling record to the external customer-service system." Compare whether the materials state synchronization authorization. When the materials do not state authorization, the authorization boundary remains to be verified and the synchronization action is not executed. All of the above are paper comparisons. No test, deployment, or approval is claimed.