What the documents look like
Platform refund and return handling runs order by order, and a given case does not necessarily connect to a promise made in a single livestream session. The daily documents named for this category are refund applications, return logistics waybills, quality inspection photos, and refund approvals. The stated update cadence is per order and daily. Operations handover therefore works on per-order material: one refund application sits alongside one return waybill, while inspection photos and refund approvals each carry their own status. At the deployment and upgrade step, the first check is the current version against the target version and its upgrade notes; an old configuration name does not establish current behaviour. The authorization state recorded in handover material is the focus here. A retrieved document or a filled-in form does not mean a refund approval has been granted.
Constraints at the upgrades step
The upgrade covers image tag updates for fastgpt-app and fastgpt-pro, plus two manually triggered upgrade scripts: the historical chunk training task migration (20261008_migrate_chunk_training) and the knowledge base rebuild status migration (20261009_migrate_dataset_rebuild_status). The first requires confirming that all old-version App and Pro instances have fully stopped and that old task leases have expired before it is run; the second depends on the first having completed. These are pre-upgrade checks, and they do not amount to a zero-downtime commitment.
Hypothetical drill sample: a returns specialist submits one handover request. The source material has three sentences. First: "Refund application R-2041, order 88231, application date 4 March 2026, refund amount 268, status pending review." Second: "Return waybill SF-77120, signed 6 March 2026, receiving warehouse East China Returns Warehouse." Third: "Inspection photo Q-3091, taken 7 March 2026, conclusion field empty." The proposed sentence is: "R-2041 has completed refund approval and the refund can be executed." The question is whether that proposed sentence is supported by the material.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers documented settings and implementation checks tied to this page's sample and upgrade review. Values are starting points for this hypothetical drill only, with the comparison object noted.
| Configuration or check | Hypothetical starting point | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| AIPROXYAPIENDPOINT | Assume http://aiproxy:3000 | Documented as a root address without /v1; compare against a value that appends a path |
| AIPROXYAPITOKEN | Assume a non-empty admin token | Documented as non-empty and matching the server; compare against an empty value |
| FILETOKENKEY | Assume a random strong key | Documented minimum length 6; compare against the example value |
| AES256SECRETKEY | Assume a random strong key | Documented minimum length 6; compare against the example value |
| Upgrade precondition check | Assume old instances confirmed stopped | Script requires expired old task leases; compare against instances still running |
| Handover material status check | Assume field-by-field comparison per order | Compare material status fields against the proposed sentence's conclusion |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending refund application as approved. In the sample, R-2041 has status pending review while the proposed sentence says refund approval is complete. Input: the three source sentences and the proposed sentence. Compare: the refund application status field against the proposed conclusion. Observable result: the status field reads pending review, so the proposed sentence is unsupported.
- Treating the existence of an inspection photo as a completed inspection conclusion. In the sample, Q-3091 has an empty conclusion field. Input: the third source sentence. Compare: the conclusion field value against the conclusion the proposed sentence needs. Observable result: the conclusion field is empty and remains to be verified.
- Treating a filled form or a retrieved document as authorized execution. In the sample, the handover request is submitted on paper with no approval signature record. Input: the handover request and the material. Compare: whether any approval field is present. Observable result: the material records no approval signature, so the authorization gap remains.
How to verify the setup
- Check the proposed sentence field by field against the three sample sentences. Input: the R-2041 status field, the SF-77120 signed date, the Q-3091 conclusion field, and the proposed sentence. Compare: the status field value against the phrase "has completed refund approval." Observable result: the status field reads pending review, the proposed sentence is judged unsupported, and the evidence gap is recorded.
- Check the upgrade preconditions against the sample. Input: records that hypothetically confirm old instances stopped and old task leases expired. Compare: the preconditions stated in the script notes against those records. Observable result: whether the preconditions are met; if not met, record the gap and do not infer an execution result.
- Check downstream design handling of an empty result. Input: an explicit paper input of an empty list. Compare: the downstream design's stated handling of an empty result. Observable result: whether the downstream branches on an empty result; do not claim that retrieval always returns an empty list, and do not claim that an unrelated query must be empty.