Official recipe

Investigate a merchant chargeback with order and communication evidence

A chargeback notice may describe a transaction differently from the order record. A merchant needs to understand the discrepancy before accepting a loss or contesting a customer’s account.

Read original recipe

Proposed inputs

Name
Case notice
Owner
Merchant reviewer
Minimum scope
One invented payment and order reference
Quality check
Ensure each ID maps to only one record.
Name
Evidence bundle
Owner
Order support owner
Minimum scope
Synthetic fulfilment events and three correspondence excerpts
Quality check
Preserve dates, provenance and contradictory details.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum: Keep immutable evidence copies and assign stable exhibit IDs.
Work offline; exclude processor write tools.
Compatibility unknowns: Unknown: current SDK support, processor permissions and dispute-specific submission requirements.
External actions requiring approval: Any live dispute acceptance, evidence submission, customer contact or account access.

Detailed steps and output format

At a glance

Suggested result: A review packet linking the disputed payment, fulfilment record, relevant correspondence and unresolved questions.Suggested; untested.
Tool: OpenAI Agents SDK; StripeSource-named; check current access.
Suggested inputs: Case notice; Evidence bundleProposed; access notes below.
Human review: Proposed: Any live dispute acceptance, evidence submission, customer contact or account access.Suggested boundaries; source approvals below.
Setup notes: Keep immutable evidence copies and assign stable exhibit IDs. Work offline; exclude processor write tools.Guide notes; proposed setup untested.
Cost: Workflow cost not established. Check current tool pricing, setup and human review costs before trying it.No measured cost or time added.
Content depth: Source-linked example · suggestions untestedDepth does not establish successful execution.

Check source evidence and limits ↓

Source-backed example. Practical decision guidance is proposed and untested; this is not a full implementation guide.

The problem

A chargeback notice may describe a transaction differently from the order record. A merchant needs to understand the discrepancy before accepting a loss or contesting a customer’s account.

Suggested task · untested

Proposed: Prepare an offline merchant dispute evidence packet.

What you could produce

A review packet linking the disputed payment, fulfilment record, relevant correspondence and unresolved questions.

Where these suggestions come from

Core problem: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Agent job: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Expected output: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Relevant job roles: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Benefit type: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source

Suggestions and their limits

Describes the proposed purpose and review output; measured benefit and successful delivery are not established.

Editorial synthesis based on the linked source. This framing does not add evidence of successful delivery or results.

Before you try it · suggestions untested

Original decision guidance and first check are proposals. The source supports the attributed task; this guidance has not been executed.

Read the attributed source evidence and original caveats below ↓

Why use this

A delivery label alone does not establish that the disputed goods reached the right person.
Keeping contradictory records visible gives the reviewer a defensible starting point without presuming either party is wrong.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment: Distinguish evidence about this transaction from unrelated customer history and explain conflicts.
Simpler alternative: Use a processor export and a fixed evidence checklist for an unambiguous case.
Unsuitable when: Identity is unresolved or the task requires an automatic financial decision.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact: A review packet linking the disputed payment, fulfilment record, relevant correspondence and unresolved questions.
Critical checks: Every exhibit belongs to the same disputed transaction.
A shipment event is distinguished from confirmed delivery.
The packet preserves contrary evidence and missing facts.
Missing output evidence: Unknown: no independently inspected run artifact or live outcome.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status: proposed_unexecuted
Synthetic fixture: One fictional chargeback with a shipped status, an undelivered carrier event and an email about a different order.
Acceptance checks: Separate the unrelated email.
Preserve the shipping/delivery contradiction.
Produce a packet without changing a dispute.
Stop conditions: Real payment actions, contested identity or unsupported accusations.

Tasks: Shopping & products Research & discovery Email & messages

Useful for: General use

Editorial relevance from the title and source-supported actions; not evidence of the operator’s occupation.

OpenAI Agents SDK; StripeIndependent testing: No

Failure handling, costs and limits

Failure signals and proposed responses

Signal
Wrong order linked
Why it matters
A valid record can support the wrong dispute.
Proposed response
Stop and ask the reviewer to resolve the payment-to-order mapping.
Signal
One-sided correspondence
Why it matters
Selective excerpts can misrepresent the customer.
Proposed response
Include relevant preceding context and identify missing messages.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work: Define exhibit IDs, source ownership and a compact reviewer checklist.
Ongoing review: Have the merchant reviewer check each material claim against its exhibit.
Unknowns: Unknown: implementation effort, review time, usage charges and error frequency. No savings estimate established.

Limits

A prepared packet does not prove liability or predict a processor decision.

Full source evidence

Official recipe · Tool workflows

Original task title: Investigate a merchant chargeback with order and communication evidence

Editorial candidate. This is source-backed reporting or a documented workflow. BotCurrent has not independently tested this task. A proposed Canadian adaptation is not evidence of a Canadian deployment or compliance certification.

Original source

https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook/blob/main/examples/agents_sdk/dispute_agent.ipynb ↗

Attributed to: danbell-openai; OpenAI Cookbook

Supporting source context

Project documentation supporting the linked recipe’s scope, permissions and limits. These references do not establish an independent test or add counted jobs.

registry.yaml

Official recipe

Original action type: tool_action
What the source reports: Retrieves payment metadata and order status, routes the dispute, and gathers customer email and phone evidence into an investigation report.
Source outcome limits: Archived recipe dated 2025-03-17. Order and communication lookups are mocked; Stripe calls use test mode. No live dispute outcome verified. No independent execution test.
Evidence attribution caveat: This official recipe describes a procedure; it does not prove successful execution or independently reproduced results.
Source approval description: The acceptance branch closes disputes automatically. No universal human approval gate is shown.
Named tools: OpenAI Agents SDK; Stripe
Model or version: gpt-4o and o3-mini, as specified in the recipe
Publication date: 2025-03-17
Source last checked: 2026-10-14
Demonstrated in Canada: Unknown
Canadian availability: Unknown
Proposed Canadian adaptation: Proposed: an authorized local owner must verify availability, privacy, policy and professional-review requirements. Canadian execution is unknown.
Recommended approval boundaries: Proposed: Any live dispute acceptance, evidence submission, customer contact or account access.