What the documents look like
Platform refunds and returns arrive order by order rather than being tied to a single live-stream event, so the material set accumulates continuously. A refund request, a return logistics document, quality-inspection photos, and a refund approval record form the core documents for each case. These come from separate systems: the after-sales backend, customer-service chat, WMS receiving, and payment refund records. Because updates occur per order and daily, the logistics status, inspection conclusion, and approval opinion for one order can belong to different points in time. Retrieval must align them by order number before any comparison is meaningful.
The three most time-consuming steps are judging return responsibility, chasing the returned parcel, and approving the refund amount. Each requires checking the subject, object, state, and validity scope recorded in the documents. A retrieval result or a form submission does not by itself constitute authorization for any downstream business action.
Constraints at the workflow routing step
The form input node is a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded; after the user fills the required information and submits, the node collects the submitted information and passes it to subsequent nodes. The user-selection node is also a user-interaction node. When it triggers, the conversation likewise enters an interaction state; when the user makes a choice, the node evaluates that choice and executes the "yes" branch. Both nodes can be added repeatedly and both trigger execution.
At this routing step, the collected information must be explicitly passed to later retrieval, judgment, or interface nodes, and the output must be compared item by item against the input. Order writes, document backfill, and external status synchronization require a separate business interface or a later process. A form submission is not a business approval, and it is not a refund execution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source text under review reads: "Order A-7701; the buyer submitted a refund request on March 2; the return logistics document shows the warehouse signed for receipt on March 5; the quality-inspection photo is annotated as outer packaging damaged; the refund approval field shows pending review." A proposed draft sentence reads: "This order has completed refund approval and been synchronized to the payment system." A pending request reads: "Please confirm the refund approval status based on the above material." The source contains a subject, an object, and a state, and it does not record approval completion or a synchronization record.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point for this page | Verification method and notes |
|---|---|---|
| Form input node | Enabled, collecting order number and refund request number | After submission, check whether the information is passed to subsequent nodes |
| User-selection node | Enabled, with a responsibility-judgment branch | Verify the "yes" branch connection and output one by one |
| Input passing check | Map collected fields to a retrieval or judgment node | Compare node output against form input for consistency |
| Retrieval library identifier | Record the vector model identifier | Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together |
| Empty-result handling | Use the paper input [] to check the downstream design | Observe whether downstream treats it as empty input; do not presume a return |
| External operation division | Order writes and status synchronization use a separate interface | Check whether a corresponding business interface exists; if absent, record the gap |
The trial starting point for the form input node is chosen because this page's main task requires collecting the order number and refund request number before any comparison can be aligned; the comparison method is to inspect whether those two fields appear in the downstream node's input. The user-selection starting point is chosen because responsibility judgment is one of the three time-consuming steps named for this category; the comparison method is to trace each "yes" branch connection to its output. These are hypothetical starting values for this exercise, not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating a form submission as completed refund approval. The check input is the sample form submission record; the comparison is between the submission state and the approval field reading "pending review." When the submission record appears and the approval state has not changed, approval completion is not supported.
- Treating a user-selection "yes" branch as business authorization. The check input is the user-selection result together with the subsequent interface-call record; the comparison is between the branch execution and the authorization field. When only the branch has executed and no authorization record exists, authorization is not supported.
- Treating a retrieval hit as a permission or entity filter. The check input is the returned retrieval entries together with the library identifier; the comparison is between the library identifier of the returned entries and the target library identifier. When the identifiers differ, the entries cannot be associated together; exclude the non-matching entries and record the observation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the proposed draft sentence. Compare the draft sentence "has completed refund approval and been synchronized to the payment system" against the source text's "refund approval field shows pending review." The source does not record approval completion or a synchronization record, so the draft sentence is not supported.
- Input the sample pending request "Please confirm the refund approval status based on the above material." Compare the approval-status field the request requires against the source text's approval field. The source shows only "pending review," so the output should be pending verification with the evidence gap retained.
- Input the paper empty result
[]together with the downstream node design. Compare whether the downstream treats it as empty input, and observe whether the downstream produces an exception or a default fill. When no default fill is observed, the design is treated as consistent.
Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to its settings. Optional paths listed in the overall workflow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; check the identifier first, exclude non-matching entries, and record the actual observation. Retrieval and forms do not carry out authorization or execution. Approval, synchronization, and writes that are not recorded in the source material require a separate system implementation; when that implementation is absent, record the gap.