What the documents look like
Refund-only disputes differ from ordinary return-and-refund cases in one material respect: there is frequently no returned parcel entering the warehouse. The evidence therefore concentrates on dispatch, delivery and signature, and on the value of the goods. The working materials are the after-sales platform application record, the carrier tracking trail, the customer service chat log and the warehouse outbound record. These are updated per order and daily.
For operations permission and handover management, this means the person handing over and the person taking over must check, order by order, what state each item of material is actually in. A retrieval result and a completed form field do not substitute for an authorization decision. Citation tracing requires every conclusion to be tied back to specific source text, and any field the source does not state stays unknown.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node outputs a citation array. Its length may be zero, and an empty array does not mean the workflow has terminated. Citation content must be checked item by item against the source text; fluent wording in an answer does not replace source evidence. Retrieval is a recall operation and does not perform permission or entity isolation. The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold and does not exclude unrelated business lines or unauthorized records. Linked knowledge bases must share the same vector model; bases with different vector models cannot be linked together. At the point of operation, verify the identifier first and exclude those that do not match, rather than running a cross-model search to compare missed recall. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple recall paths through RRF; this fusion is a process, not a switch. Image retrieval requires corresponding image input and model capability. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to configuration. The optional paths listed in the overall flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text supplied for checking reads as follows. "Application A-0715: the buyer submitted a refund-only application on 15 July 2025, on the ground that the goods were not received; the carrier tracking trail shows signature on 12 July; the outbound record shows dispatch on 10 July." The handover request to be assessed reads: "Please confirm whether this order holds authorization to submit a platform appeal." The source text contains the subject, the object, the state and the date range. It does not state any appeal authorization clause.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below concerns this sample and lists only documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and this primary task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical drill, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Starting point for this hypothetical drill | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Select only after-sales material bases that share one vector model | Check the vector model identifier, exclude bases that do not match, then link |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare against semantic retrieval and full-text retrieval for coverage of the source text |
| Minimum relevance | Starting point 0.5 | Compare against 0.3 and 0.7 for how closely cited source text matches the question |
| Citation cap | Starting point 2000 tokens | Compare against 1000 and 4000 for completeness of cited source text and truncation |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Compare against disabled for whether the retrieval terms are completed in multi-turn follow-ups |
| Reranking | Enabled | Compare against not enabled for the stability of candidate source ordering |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval recall as an authorization action. The input is the sample application source text together with the handover request. Compare the retrieval output against the authorization clause. Where the source text states no appeal authorization, record the evidence gap and do not conclude that authorization exists.
- Treating an empty citation array as a workflow failure. The input is the paper-level empty array
[]. Compare the downstream node design and observe whether the downstream path still runs. Do not claim that a fabricated rule search necessarily returns empty. - Treating a pending-review state as missing operating permission. The input is the application state "pending review". Compare the same subject, the same period and the same field. Where permission is not stated, record it as unsupported, not as a denial or a conflict.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample application source text together with the proposed sentence. Compare the field consistency between the cited source text and the proposed sentence. The expected observation is that each item can be traced to the source text, and fields the source does not state are marked unknown.
- Input the paper-level empty array
[]. Compare the downstream handling design. The expected observation is that the downstream path still runs, without an assertion that an error occurred. - Input two knowledge base identifiers that share one vector model. Compare the identifiers for consistency. The expected observation is that matching bases are linked, non-matching bases are excluded, and the actual observation is recorded.