Can I return these shoes?
A customer needs an answer. An invoice needs checking. Your team wants to try a new tool. Start with a familiar problem, see what is happening, and choose what you would do. No technical background needed.
- Meet the problem
- See what is happening
- Make a choice
- Find out why
- Try a small change
All decisions are free without an account or API key. Drafts stay on this device only, not in account sync. Follow-up lessons retain their existing sign-in and plan requirements.
These are made-up (synthetic) stories with feedback written in advance, not live AI results or real customer outcomes. They help you practise, but do not certify your skills.
A customer brings back shoes bought on sale last week. You work at the shop and use an AI helper to draft replies. The shop has different return rules for different items, and those rules sometimes change.
The problem: Give this customer the rule that applies to their shoes, rather than a confident answer about how returns usually work.
AI-illustrated teaching scene. Follow the arrows from 1 to 3; they show how to read the story, not actions taken by an AI.
- Last week: sale shoes
The receipt shows the item, shop and purchase date.
- Several return rules
The shop keeps separate rules for different items and dates.
- Can I return them?
A customer is waiting for your reply at the counter.
What would you do?
What would you ask the AI helper to do first?
- Draft an answer from the usual 30-day rule
Why this choice?
That rule sounds familiar, but this shop may treat sale shoes differently. A friendly answer still needs the right shop rule behind it.
- Find the current shop rule for these shoes
Why this choice?
The item and purchase date help find the right rule. Ask for the source beside the draft so you can check it before replying. If no clear rule covers the shoes, ask the shop manager.
- Reuse last week's answer to another customer
Why this choice?
An earlier reply can help with wording, but the other customer may have bought a different item. Check today's applicable rule before reusing its answer.
What to take away
Start with the shop's applicable rule, then write the reply. Sounding certain is not the same as knowing what this customer is entitled to.
What if something changes?
The shop manager posts a short, dated notice covering this sale. It names these shoes and says they can be returned within 14 days. The AI search still shows the old rule. The customer has their receipt from seven days ago.
How would you answer this customer now?
- Show the new notice and explain the 14-day rule
Why this choice?
The manager's notice covers these shoes and this purchase date. You can answer directly from it; there is no need to make the AI rewrite one clear sentence.
- Use the AI search result because it checks more documents
Why this choice?
More documents do not help if the answer misses today's notice. The old search result is not the current rule for this sale.
- Ask the customer to wait until AI search catches up
Why this choice?
Waiting would make sense if the rule were unclear. Here, the manager has already supplied a clear answer for this purchase, so waiting adds work without resolving anything.
What to take away
When one trusted, up-to-date notice answers the question, use it directly. An AI helper is useful only if it makes the job easier.
The idea behind this story
Find the rule that applies, not just an answer that sounds right.
Where would you look if a confident answer disagreed with the shop's latest notice?
The technical connection: Grounding and retrieval
Grounding means tying an answer to a source you can check. Retrieval finds relevant source material for the AI. If that search is out of date, a current source may be more useful on its own.
Advanced: Answer the policy, not a plausible policy
Choose how a support assistant finds current evidence, then respond when the evidence service cannot keep up.
Customer support · 8 minutes
The problem
Synthetic practice scenario: all quantities and evaluation outcomes are illustrative, not reported research. A service team wants draft answers about returns across product lines; staff currently search policy documents and must verify the policy before replying.
Your initial decision
How should the first assistant help staff answer a policy question?
- The illustrative corpus contains 600 approved documents with product, region, effective-date and access metadata.
- Questions usually concern one product and region; exact product codes and natural-language descriptions both matter.
- Policy updates arrive daily; the assistant may draft replies but cannot approve exceptions or issue refunds.
- Unsupported or conflicting evidence must produce a handoff, not an invented policy.
Compare the alternatives
- Offer a product-and-region source menu
A product-and-region lookup is easy to audit but leaves staff to read and reconcile long documents.
- Draft from filtered retrieved passages
Combine keyword and semantic retrieval with access and effective-date filters; ranking needs tuning and freshness monitoring.
- Put complete permitted policy documents in context
Full-document prompting preserves surrounding exceptions and avoids chunk tuning, but broad product queries create large contexts that must be refreshed and access-filtered.
Mechanism, trade-offs, and evidence
- Start with the task: staff need the currently applicable rule, not the most fluent paragraph; compare against their existing lookup workflow.
- Lexical search preserves exact codes while semantic search helps paraphrases, but neither establishes access or policy validity without metadata filters.
- Evaluate retrieval misses separately from unsupported generation and include conflicts and unanswerable questions in a held-out task set.
- A graph is not justified by mostly local policy questions; introduce relationship retrieval only if a distinct multi-document failure appears.
Reconsider after a change
During a policy migration, the index is stale and new effective-date mappings are not yet validated; the pilot is temporarily narrowed to a signed emergency bulletin.
What should staff use until the migration is verified?
- In this synthetic phase, only 12 short bulletin entries are in scope and staff can select the relevant entry directly.
- The index has a 48-hour update lag, exceeding the illustrative same-day freshness requirement.
- The signed bulletin is the temporary authority; wider policy questions require a human policy owner.
- The migration needs access and effective-date regression checks before normal retrieval resumes.
Compare the alternatives
- Restore the filtered retrieval pipeline
Restoring the filtered pipeline can recover broad coverage but requires verified mappings and freshness monitoring before release.
- Generate answers from the complete signed bulletin
Passing the bulletin directly avoids the stale index and preserves its full context, but generated synthesis adds verification work to a small set of directly selectable entries.
- Return the selected bulletin entry directly
A deterministic selector returns the signed excerpt and source link immediately; staff must select the region and confirm coverage, while cross-policy questions still require a handoff.
Mechanism, trade-offs, and evidence
- The original architecture was conditional on fresh, valid evidence; that assumption has changed even though the model has not.
- A narrower deterministic source now meets the immediate need with less uncertainty, so reducing complexity is a justified adaptation.
- Record deferred questions and migration failures to guide restoration, rather than silently treating reduced coverage as full service.
- After validation, compare the restored pipeline with direct lookup again; the former recommendation is not a permanent commitment.
Related technical concepts
Follow-up lessons retain their existing sign-in and plan requirements.
- rag basics
- retrieval engineering
- hallucination grounding
- ai ready data
- context engineering
- graph rag
- agent uncertainty calibration
- data knowledge operations
Technical sources
- Introducing Contextual Retrieval — Anthropic Engineering
Explains chunk context, lexical and semantic retrieval, and reranking; vendor results are not evidence about these fictional support documents.
- Demystifying evals for AI agents — Anthropic Engineering
Explains tasks, graders, repeated trials and outcome evaluation for agents; use task-specific tests rather than importing reported scores.
- Building effective agents — Anthropic Engineering
Distinguishes fixed workflows from model-directed agents and recommends testing simpler solutions first; its tooling examples are historical.
Learning together? Pick a story, compare your choices, and talk about what might change your mind. There are no verified team scores or completion records here.
Self-checks and completion records help you reflect; they are not independently verified credentials. Credential availability, assessment, and eligibility are separate.
AI Agents, Explained — free, no login
Explore the cases
- Can I return these shoes?
- The refund screen froze. Did the money move?
- The AI fixed Save. Can we put it live?
- The shop website will not take orders
- We both said approved supplier. Did we mean the same thing?
- It gets the same ten questions right. Is it ready?
- How do I book an appointment on a noisy bus?
- We can improve one task. Which one is worth our time?
- It is your first day at the garden. Where do you start?
- Can the helper pay this repair bill?
- Can we sign the room booking agreement today?
- The caterers sent their prices. Are we comparing the same thing?
- A customer wants a cake by Saturday. Can we promise it?
- Should our shopping helper reorder the household supplies?
- Can we put the neighbors' feedback into an AI tool?
- A volunteer needs the event plans. Which folders should they see?
- These club files are old. Can we delete them?
- There is a new AI helper. Should the club switch?
- Our online helper is down. How can we help visitors?
- The AI writes faster. Why do handovers take longer?