E-commerce
July 1, 2026
"Delete our chat from April 8th." "I don't want you to keep this exchange anymore." "I requested deletion, the transcript is still there." Three tickets where the support conversation deletion lacks a clear procedure.
The e-commerce support conversation erasure covers targeted requests (one exchange or the entire support history), identity verification, open dispute exceptions, and confirmation delay. Distinct from account deletion (#823): here the focus is on erasing support exchanges, not the entire customer profile.
This guide #903 deploys policy CONVDEL-SUP, flow CD-1 to CD-8, and matrix CONVDEL-MAP. Partner to the CS of the future deletion bot (#904).
Summary
Why does deleting a conversation generate tickets?
Client confuses chat deletion with account deletion. Agent promises immediate deletion even though a chargeback dispute blocks legal retention. Without CONVDEL-MAP, confusion arises with copy access #901 or policy #899.
Five typical conversation deletion frictions
Vague scope: one chat or the entire support history
Unverified identity: deletion without requester verification
Open dispute: deletion impossible without explanation
Opaque timeframe: no deletion confirmation
Account confusion: convdel vs acctdel #823
DTC retail example
DTC fashion, 5 convdel_ tickets/month. After CONVDEL-MAP: convdel_deletion_resolution_rate 86%, unnecessary DPO escalations -48%.
CONVDEL #903 vs ACCTDEL #823, HISTACC #901, CONVREC #899 and bot #904
Six privacy deletion contents, six distinct angles.
Quick matrix
#903 CONVDEL: delete targeted support conversation verify identity exceptions dispute
ACCTDEL #823: deletion of entire account profile orders kept
HISTACC #901: access to transcript copy distinct from deletion
CONVREC #899: recording policy convrec_delete_request guides
CONVRECBOT #900: retention explained delete_route handoff
HISTACCbot #902: identity access distinct from delete
Bot #904: inform route deletion widget
#823 = delete my account. #903 = clear this chat or my support history.
Promise #903
CONVDEL-SUP policy, CONVDEL-GATE tree, 8 macros, dispute criteria, convdel_deletion_resolution_rate KPI.
Which typologies does convdel_* classify?
Action-oriented classifier: single ≠ full ≠ litige_blocked.
Eight CONVDEL-MAP typologies
convdel_request_single: delete a conversation on a specific date
convdel_request_full: entire customer support history
convdel_identity_pending: requester verification in progress
convdel_litige_blocked: open chargeback customer service dispute blocks delete
convdel_scope_question: what remains after deletion
convdel_delay_complaint: deletion requested not confirmed
convdel_partial_done: part deleted, customer wants the rest
convdel_escalate_dpo: formal GDPR right to erasure contested
Policy CONVDEL-SUP: agent rules and exceptions
The CONVDEL-SUP policy establishes identity verification before deletion and legal retention exceptions.
Six CONVDEL-SUP rules
VERIFY-IDENTITY-FIRST: CONVDEL-VERIFY before any deletion
Explicit Scope: CONVDEL-SCOPE single vs full documented
Litigation Check: CONVDEL-LITIGE-CHECK open ticket blocks execution
Confirm delete: CONVDEL-CONFIRM after helpdesk execution
Do not confuse accounts: convdel u2260 acctdel #823 unless explicitly requested
GDPR dispute u2192 DPO: convdel_escalate_dpo
What may remain after chat deletion
Invoice orders: accounting retention obligations remain unchanged
Open litigation: retention until closure
Active account: customer profile is not deleted unless #823 is applied
Flow CD-1 to CD-8: deletion processing
Eight sequential steps, SLA P2 convdel < 72 h, escalate to DPO if escalate_dpo.
Flow CD-1 to CD-8
CD-1 Triage: chat deletion vs account #823?
CD-2 Classify: convdel_* via CONVDEL-MAP
CD-3 Verify: VERIFY email OTP order
CD-4 Litige check: LITIGE-CHECK chargeback open customer service
CD-5 Execute: delete helpdesk single or full scope
CD-6 Confirm: CONVDEL-CONFIRM perimeter delay
CD-7 Blocked explain: LITIGE-BLOCKED + date of re-evaluation
CD-8 Close: KPI convdel_deletion_resolution_rate + brief #904
Eight ready-to-paste CONVDEL-* macros
Aligned macros dispute scope verification confirmation.
CONVDEL-* Library
CONVDEL-ACKNOWLEDGE: "We are processing your conversation deletion request."
CONVDEL-VERIFY: "To secure, please confirm {{email}} or order {{id}}."
CONVDEL-SCOPE: "Scope: {{single_ou_full}}. Account and orders: unchanged except #823."
CONVDEL-CONFIRM: "Conversation(s) {{périmètre}} deleted. Confirmation within {{délai}}."
CONVDEL-LITIGE-BLOCKED: "Dispute {{id}} open: retention until closure. Re-evaluation {{date}}."
CONVDEL-SCOPE-INFO: "Remaining: orders, invoices, active account. Deleted: support transcript."
CONVDEL-ESCALATE-DPO: "Request forwarded to DPO. Response within {{SLA_DPO}}."
CONVDEL-DONE: "Summary: {{demande}}. Status: {{résolution}}. Reference: {{id}}."
CONVDEL-GATE tree and deletion register
Decision tree before delete without identity or without dispute check.
CONVDEL-GATE
Entire account requested? → handoff ACCTDEL #823
Identity verified? → LITIGE-CHECK
Dispute open? → LITIGE-BLOCKED no delete
Single or full scope? → SCOPE + EXECUTE delete
Copy requested? → handoff HISTACC #901 no CONVDEL
Minimum internal registry
Delete procedure helpdesk bot email, dispute_blocked criteria, confirmation delay, single full distinction, DPO handoff. Train agents: convdel ≠ acctdel #823 ≠ histacc #901.
KPI, QA and hand-off to bot #904
Measuring CONVDEL detects deletes without verification and poorly explained dispute blocks.
Four CONVDEL KPIs
convdel_deletion_resolution_rate: executed deletions or explained blocked / total
convdel_identity_verify_rate: % of deletes preceded by VERIFY
convdel_litige_blocked_explained_rate: % blocked with clear LITIGE-BLOCKED
convdel_acctdel_misroute_rate: account tickets routed to convdel target low
Handoff #904
Export CONVDEL-MAP to bot: priority convdel_request_single convdel_scope_question. Guardrail CONVDEL-VERIFY-GATE brief #904 scope dispute copy.
Edge cases: QA sampling, minor, multi-channel
Three cases outside the standard flow.
QA quality sample
Anonymization possible as a delete alternative if QA policy applies. SCOPE-INFO transparent.
Minor or third party
Reinforced VERIFY. ESCALATE-DPO if identity is in doubt.
Bot + email same request
SCOPE specifies deleted channels. Multi-channel delete if the registry allows it.
Agent training: 20 minutes CONVDEL
Module: VERIFY-FIRST, LITIGE-CHECK, SCOPE, distinguish #823 #901 #899.
Exercises
Ticket A: delete chat April 8 → VERIFY LITIGE delete CONFIRM
Ticket B: delete my account → handoff ACCTDEL #823
Ticket C: open chargeback → LITIGE-BLOCKED do not delete
How Qstomy structures CONVDEL in your stack
Qstomy route convdel_*, delete transcript helpdesk, macros LITIGATION SCOPE and handoff #904 router widget.
Three bricks
Routing: intent conv_delete vs acct_delete vs histacc_access
Delete registry: sync macros CONVDEL-* litigation scope criteria
Bot #904: inform scope router agent
Scenario: retail DTC, 4 tickets/month convdel. LITIGATION-CHECK agents, bot #904 scope. convdel_deletion_resolution_rate goes from 68% to 87% in 4 weeks.
FAQ and CONVDEL deployment checklist
FAQ
Delete without verifying identity?
No. Systematic VERIFY-IDENTITY-FIRST.
Difference #823?
#903 = erase support conversations. #823 = delete entire customer account.
Difference #901?
#901 = copy access. #903 = erasure deletion.
Difference #904?
#903 = agents execute delete. #904 = bot inform router.
7-Day Checklist
D1: CONVDEL-SUP + CONVDEL-MAP + dispute registry scope
D2: 8 helpdesk macros
D3: routing matrix #823 #901 #899
D4: 20-min agent training VERIFY DISPUTE
D5: convdel_* tags + KPIs
D6: test DELETE vs BLOCKED vs handoff #823
D7: brief bot #904 VERIFY-GATE
Interlinking
Enzo
July 1, 2026
