The "Manage reasons" link goes to the general models list (pageListUrl()) without filtering to the configured refund reason page type. Passing a pageTypes filter based on modelForRefundReasonRefId would make this link land the user on the relevant subset of models.

useModelsOfTypeQuery will run even when the modal is closed (as long as modelForRefundReasonRefId is set), which adds an unnecessary network request on every page load. Consider skipping the query when open is false (e.g. include open in the skip condition) and only fetching models when the modal is actually visible.

The new reason type <Select> has no accessible label (no label/aria-label), which makes it difficult to use with screen readers. Please provide a label (or at least an aria-label) consistent with other selects in the app.

The refund reason type <Select> is missing an explicit accessible label (label prop or aria-label). Even though the card title provides visual context, screen readers typically need an associated label on the control itself.

The "Manage reasons" link currently navigates to the unfiltered models list (pageListUrl()), which may make it hard to find the configured refund-reason models. Consider passing query params to pre-filter by the configured modelForRefundReasonRefId (e.g. using the pageTypes filter) so the link matches the feature context.

The refund reason type <Select> is rendered without a label/aria-label. Please add an accessible label so assistive technologies can identify the control (this is especially important since this select is not wrapped by the shared @dashboard/components/Select which enforces form-style labeling patterns).

The TODO comment indicates a known limitation: "Missing pagination, will fail if more than 100 types". This should be addressed before merging. The query uses first: 100 which creates a hard limit. Implement proper pagination with cursor-based navigation or increase awareness of this limitation in the code.

The useEffect has a missing dependency. The effect depends on setValue which should be included in the dependency array. While setValue from useForm is stable, it's best practice to include it or use ESLint disable comment with justification.

The reasonReference field uses || undefined which is redundant. An empty string is falsy and would already become undefined with the OR operator. However, this pattern might cause issues if reasonReference is intentionally an empty string. Consider using nullish coalescing (?? undefined) instead to only convert null/undefined values, or remove the conversion entirely if empty strings are acceptable.

In the squashLines function, the logic for preserving reason fields uses acc[item.id].reason || item.reason. This means if the accumulated reason is an empty string, it will be overwritten by the new item's reason. This might not be the intended behavior - if the first item explicitly has an empty reason, it should likely be preserved. Consider using nullish coalescing (??) instead of logical OR (||) to only fall back when the value is null or undefined.

There's a typo in the TODO comment on line 71: "tood" should be "todo". While this is a minor issue, consistent spelling helps maintain code quality.

The form submission logic has inconsistent behavior. When returnReasonReferenceType is an empty string (line 135), it calls clearReferenceType(), but when it's falsy in other ways, nothing happens. Consider handling all falsy values consistently or adding an else clause to handle unexpected states.

The conditional spreading on lines 105-106 only includes reason and reasonReference fields when they are truthy. This means empty strings will be excluded. If the API expects these fields to be explicitly set to empty string or null in certain cases, this logic might cause issues. Consider whether null or empty string should be explicitly sent, or document why truthy-only inclusion is the correct behavior.

The "Return reason" card is only shown when hasTransactions is true. This creates an inconsistency where return reasons are not available for orders without transactions. Consider whether return reasons should be available in all return flows, not just those with transactions, to maintain feature consistency across different order types.

The new returnsSettings module has no test coverage. Given that this module has complex form handling, API interactions with mutations and queries, and critical business logic for configuring return reasons, test coverage should be added. At minimum, add tests for the ReturnsSettingsPage component covering form submission, validation, and error handling scenarios.

The canGrantRefundDuringReturn function only checks if refundReasonConfigured is true, but it doesn't validate if a reason is actually provided when required. This might allow users to bypass required reason fields. Consider adding validation to ensure reasons are provided when the configuration requires them.