B2B returns triage: assemble the RMA case, keep the credit decision with staff

The first step is identifying what is being returned. The workflow searches orders by the customer's account, the purchase order number, part numbers and dates, and proposes the most likely match with its reasons. If several orders match, it lists them for a person to choose.

Once matched, the workflow attaches the terms that apply: the customer's contract, the standard terms on the order, and the product's warranty. It shows the relevant clauses, such as the return window, condition requirements and restocking rules, quoted from the source. Where terms conflict or are missing, the case says so.

Customers send photos, videos, test reports and documents. Uploads are an attack surface as well as evidence. OWASP's file upload guidance recommends allowing only the file extensions the business needs, validating file type rather than trusting the Content-Type header, renaming files with application-generated names, and setting size limits. I would apply those measures to any intake portal or email attachment processing before files reach reviewers or a model.

Each piece of evidence is attached to the case with its source and received time. If the customer's description mentions evidence that was not attached, the case lists it as missing.

Customer messages often combine several issues: a product failure, a delivery complaint and a billing question. The workflow can split the message into separate items and route each to its owner, so the return decision is not delayed by unrelated questions and the other issues are not lost.

A model can help with that separation and with summarizing the claimed failure in plain terms. The summary should quote the customer's own words for the key facts, so reviewers can check it against the original message.

The reviewer sees a single case: matched order, applicable terms with quotes, evidence, the claimed failure, the customer's request and what is missing. The workflow can note facts relevant to the terms, such as the number of days since delivery compared with the return window, computed by code.

It should not recommend approval or rejection. Return decisions often involve judgment about the customer relationship, the likely cause of failure and supplier recovery, and they need a named decision maker with recorded reasons.

When evidence is missing, the workflow drafts a request from approved templates listing exactly what is needed and why. The reviewer edits and sends it. I would not send customer messages automatically in the first release, because a poorly worded request can read as a refusal.

When the reviewer decides, the workflow records the decision, the reasons, the authorized return quantity, the return method and any credit or replacement terms. It can then create the return authorization record and notify the warehouse, using values the reviewer confirmed.

If the return may be recoverable from a supplier, the case can be linked to a supplier claim with the same evidence, so the work is not repeated.

Over time, returns data shows patterns: a part number with rising failure claims, a customer with repeated condition issues, or a carrier associated with damage. A simple report by part, customer, supplier and failure type helps the quality and sales teams. The workflow should present those patterns as information, not as automatic flags that change how a customer is treated.

In a pilot, compare the workflow's order matches, terms and missing-evidence lists with what the returns team found. Track wrong matches, missed terms and cases sent back for missing information that the workflow should have caught.

The acceptance condition I would agree: every case links to its order and quotes the applicable terms, uploads pass the agreed file checks, nothing is promised to a customer without a person's decision, and every decision records its maker and reasons.

Bring your return policy, a few redacted return requests and how cases are tracked today.