Find evidence that a suspected unpaid refund was already issued

Why use this

1. A refund can feel unresolved when the original complaint is easy to find but later confirmation is buried elsewhere. Different reference numbers and partial reimbursements make it risky to conclude either that money is owed or everything was settled.

2. This job could reconstruct an evidence trail before the user pursues another claim. Showing what correspondence confirms and what still needs payment verification helps correct a mistaken assumption without overstating what an email proves.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Connect fragmented correspondence by trip, fee, reference number and date while distinguishing status language.

Simpler alternative

Search the mailbox for a known refund reference when the issue concerns a single clearly identified payment.

Unsuitable when

The user needs a legal determination or access to unrelated financial accounts.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Refund question

   Owner

   User

   Minimum scope

   Airline, trip reference, disputed charge and approximate dates

   Quality check

   Separate the original fee from later credits or replacement expenses.

2. Name

   Authorized correspondence

   Owner

   Mailbox owner

   Minimum scope

   Relevant messages and attachments within the identified dispute

   Quality check

   Retain sender, date, subject and payment-reference context.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read the scoped email trail and prepare an evidence summary; no claim or reply is sent.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: mailbox coverage, attachment availability and ability to corroborate actual receipt.

External actions requiring approval

1. Contacting the airline, submitting a claim or sharing financial documents.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Chronology linking disputed fees to requests, approvals, issued-refund notices and remaining uncertainty.

Critical checks

1. A refund approval is not automatically treated as an issued payment.

2. Amounts, currencies and references are matched to the correct fee.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection or execution validation. Preserve the canonical implementation evidence and its outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A message confirms only one part of a multi-item reimbursement.

   Why it matters

   The summary may wrongly close the whole issue.

   Proposed response

   Break the dispute into individual amounts and mark unmatched components unresolved.

2. Signal

   An approval notice is described as proof that funds arrived.

   Why it matters

   The user may stop investigating a payment that never settled.

   Proposed response

   Use the notice’s exact status and identify any separate receipt evidence still needed.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define disputed items and reference matching.

Ongoing review

1. Review contradictory statuses and check remaining evidence with the user.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: search completeness, retrieval costs and effort to confirm payment receipt.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Fictional emails show a meal-fee refund issued, a separate hotel claim approved and a repeated meal confirmation.

Acceptance checks

1. The meal notice is deduplicated and the hotel item remains distinct.

2. Issued and approved statuses are not collapsed into a single paid label.

Stop conditions

1. A new claim, external message or unrelated account access is needed.

Limits

1. Correspondence can correct an assumption while still leaving actual settlement or unmatched expenses uncertain.