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.

  1. Meet the problem
  2. See what is happening
  3. Make a choice
  4. Find out why
  5. 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.

Picture the situation: Read from the purchase, through the possible shop rules, to the customer waiting to learn which rule applies to these shoes.
Three miniature scenes run left to right: shoes with a blank receipt and sale tag, several differently tabbed rule booklets, and a waiting customer at a counter with a shoebox and empty speech bubble.

AI-illustrated teaching scene. Follow the arrows from 1 to 3; they show how to read the story, not actions taken by an AI.

  1. Last week: sale shoes

    The receipt shows the item, shop and purchase date.

  2. Several return rules

    The shop keeps separate rules for different items and dates.

  3. 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?

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.

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.

Explore the technical decision

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