What the documents look like
Refund-only dispute handling differs from ordinary return-and-refund work because there is often no returned parcel entering the warehouse. The evidence therefore centres on dispatch, delivery and the value of the goods. Materials come from the platform after-sales console, carrier tracking, customer service chat and warehouse outbound records. Typical documents are the refund-only application, dispatch proof, signed-delivery proof and appeal materials. These materials update per order and daily. During an operations handover, materials, operations and requests each sit in a different authorization state, and neither a retrieval result nor a completed form constitutes authorized execution.
For this task, the practical effect is that a handover package cannot be treated as ready simply because the relevant records can be found or a form has been filled in. The state recorded in the source material, the completeness of the evidence set and the separation of authorization facts all have to be carried into the upgrade and handover review.
Constraints at the upgrades step
Before upgrading, check the current version against the target version and the corresponding upgrade notes. Do not infer current behaviour from an old configuration name. AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT and AIPROXY_API_TOKEN are shared by App and Admin; if either is missing, startup validation fails. The upgrade scripts are manually triggered, and the notes require confirming that all old FastGPT App and Pro instances have fully stopped and old task leases have expired before the training-task migration is executed. The dataset rebuild-status migration depends on the training-task migration completing first. The following is a hypothetical paper exercise used to show the comparison method; it does not represent a real record.
Hypothetical exercise: after a v4.17.2 upgrade, an after-sales team must hand over a batch of refund-only disputes. The source text reads: the refund-only application for after-sales order A-2026-0417 was submitted by customer service in the platform console and its status is pending review; the dispatch proof shows the carrier has collected the parcel; the signed-delivery proof is blank; the appeal materials contain a screenshot of customer service chat and no warehouse outbound record. The proposed handover sentence is: "This order already meets the appeal conditions and can be submitted to the platform appeal directly." This sentence conflates the pending-review status with the appeal conditions, and the signed-delivery proof is missing, so it must be returned for supplementation.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this page's task. The values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, chosen to make comparison possible; they are not official defaults.
| Item | Hypothetical starting point | Comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AIPROXYAPIENDPOINT | An internal address is entered, without a chat-completion path | Compare against the documented root-address format |
| AIPROXYAPITOKEN | A non-empty string is entered | Compare against the server-side configuration for consistency |
| State before upgrade script execution | Old instances are assumed stopped | Compare against the stop requirement in the upgrade notes |
| Handover material list | Application, dispatch proof, signed-delivery proof and appeal materials are assumed present | Compare item by item against the sample; record missing items as gaps |
| Authorization-state record | Only pending review is assumed recorded | Record separately from signed and effective facts |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result as authorized execution. The retrieval library and its relevance scoring do not perform permission or entity isolation, and finding a material does not mean the operation has been authorized.
- Treating pending review as missing operation permission. Pending review indicates a process state only; it does not show that permission is absent, and it does not show that appeal conditions are met.
- Treating a completed form as a completed business action. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization require their own downstream implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source material and the proposed handover sentence from the hypothetical exercise. Compare whether the proposed sentence treats the pending-review status as equivalent to the appeal conditions being met. If the sentence does not distinguish status from conditions, and the signed-delivery proof is blank, the sentence is unsupported and must be returned for supplementation.
- Input the authorization-state record from the hypothetical exercise. Compare whether the record keeps pending review, signed and effective as separate fields. If mutually exclusive values appear in the same field, record a contradiction; if only pending review is recorded, record it as unverified rather than as a negation.
- Input the material list from the hypothetical exercise. Compare whether the list contains the application, dispatch proof, signed-delivery proof and appeal materials. If the signed-delivery proof is missing, record an evidence gap and do not fabricate authorization or effective clauses.
For the upgrade itself, use the same sample to re-check import, retrieval and application invocation after the upgrade, and compare the observed behaviour against the documented conditions. Do not state that a step has been executed as a zero-interruption guarantee.