LCM Alert Validation

Confidence

Failure Category

Other

Subcategory

No Fault Found

Sensor Verdict: The LCM system issued an alert on the BROWN (Marker) circuit for trailer SV2604917 at site ORD2, indicating a potential defect in the marker light circuit. The sensor result must be classified as Inconclusive with low confidence (35%), not because the sensor is suspected to be wrong, but because the trailer was never inspected — the alert was neither confirmed nor refuted during this work order visit. There is no evidence from this WO to validate or invalidate the original LCM trigger.

Photo Evidence: No photos were provided or attached to this work order. The technician did not photograph any illuminated lights, the nosebox wiring, or the BROWN marker circuit. There is no TechAssist app completion screenshot showing circuit verification statuses. The absence of all required photo documentation means there is zero visual evidence to assess the condition of the alerting circuit or any other lighting circuit on the trailer.

Vendor Compliance: The vendor (TA) did not follow the LCM troubleshooting procedure in any meaningful way. The TechAssist app was not used, no circuit verification was performed, no photos were taken, and none of the required feedback categories (e.g., 'no defect found (confirmed with PCT)', 'full light circuit failure', etc.) were applied to an actual inspection finding. The technician's notes indicate the trailer was inaccessible at a dock door and that the work could not be completed. While the technician's explanation is reasonable given the circumstances, the work order should have been flagged as incomplete and escalated immediately rather than closed out with indirect charge line items.

Repair Summary: No repairs were made on this work order. No parts were replaced, and the BROWN marker circuit was not addressed in any capacity. The only billable activity was 0.5 hours of lot service hourly labor ($75.00) and a shop supply/environmental fee ($2.36), both coded as indirect charges. These charges appear to reflect the technician's time spent traveling to the unit and documenting its inaccessibility — no legitimate repair or diagnostic activity was completed.

Key Concerns: Several concerns are flagged with this work order. First, the WO was closed out despite zero troubleshooting being performed on the alerting BROWN circuit, which risks the defect going unaddressed indefinitely if a follow-up WO is not created promptly. Second, the technician's own notes state 'site needs to create new work order once trailer has been moved to a parking slip,' placing the burden on the site rather than ensuring a proper escalation path exists. Third, the indirect charge line items and labor billed on a completely non-productive visit warrant scrutiny. Fourth, the LCM alert remains open in practical terms — the BROWN marker circuit defect is unresolved, and the sensor's accuracy cannot be assessed until a proper inspection is completed. A new work order must be created and prioritized to fully inspect and verify the BROWN marker circuit using the TechAssist app with full photo documentation.