Relay

RelayCase Navigator?gr-003-harborguard-refund-window

Case3 / 110DatasetGrounded ReplyTargetEditAreaDeliverability

ExplainerKB / Policy Bank Previous Next

Cases4

Grounded Reply

gr-001-stale-refund-window - Reject

Customer cites stale 30-day refund article

Grounded Reply

gr-002-auto-upgrade-refund - Edit

Auto-upgrade refund promise after list upload

Grounded Reply

gr-004-dedicated-ip-promise - Edit

Dedicated IP as deliverability fix

Router Eval

routine-invoice-copy-1 - Routine request

billing

Customer Message

Our first campaign triggered HarborGuard and we appealed. We are on day 12 of our first paid month. If the appeal takes longer than two days, can we still use the refund window after the Trust team decides?

HarborGuard appeal plus refund-window confusion

Account Context

First paid charge was 12 calendar days ago.

HarborGuard suspension appeal is open.

No appeal outcome has been recorded.

AI Draft Reply

Yes. Since your HarborGuard appeal is already open, the refund window will stay available until the Deliverability & Trust team finishes its review. Please wait for the appeal outcome before deciding whether to request the refund.

Citations

Claim Review3 checks

supportedCites 1

The HarborGuard appeal is open.

The ticket and KB support the existence of an appeal process.

contradictedCites 1

The refund window stays available until the appeal finishes.

Policy says the refund window is not extended by a pending HarborGuard appeal.

policy violationCites 2, 3

The customer should wait for appeal outcome before requesting the refund.

This advice could cause the customer to lose eligibility by day 14.

Risk Flags

Main risk: Failure mode: appeal window refund confusion

Expected decision: Edit

The reply must clearly state that the appeal does not extend refund eligibility and avoid advising delay.

Failure mode: appeal window refund confusion

Issue area: deliverability

Reviewer DecisionHuman outcome for this AI draft

Review and decide if the draft is grounded, policy-safe, complete, and the right action.

Use A, E, X, or R to choose an action. Click citations to inspect evidence.

Override ReasonOptional

Stakeholder Context

What drives the review decision, and why this setup is currently recommended.

Reviewer TargetAnswer key

Expected decision: edit

The reply must clearly state that the appeal does not extend refund eligibility and avoid advising delay.

Cross-check overlapping review windows.

Flag advice that could change customer eligibility.

Experiment SummaryBest current setup for reviewCollapsed by default so the review workflow stays focused.

The demo stays on this review decision, but the experiment spine now tells us which setup should power it. The current recommendation keeps safe approvals, blocks unsafe approvals, and returns clean structured output every time.

Llama R3

Production pick

Best operating row: highest reliable accuracy with zero parse failures.

Parsed accuracy95%

Unsafe approval0%

Approval precision100%

Parse failures0 / 150

P95 latency17.2s

Nemotron R3

Conservative runner-up

Strong safety/usefulness row, but one malformed JSON output.

Parsed accuracy90%

Unsafe approval0%

Approval precision100%

Parse failures1 / 150

P95 latency27.8s

Qwen R3

Research signal

Perfect on parsed rows, but parse reliability blocks production use.

Parsed accuracy100%

Unsafe approval0%

Approval precision100%

Parse failures7 / 150

P95 latency34.4s

Parsed accuracy means accuracy after excluding malformed model outputs. Parse failures still count as product failures, which is why Llama beats Qwen for production despite Qwen's perfect parsed rows.