LCM Alert Validation

Confidence

Failure Category

No Fault Found

Subcategory

no defect found (confirmed with PCT)

Sensor Verdict: The LCM system triggered an alert on the RED (Brake) circuit for trailer SV2601702. Based on the available evidence, the sensor result is classified as Inconclusive with moderate-low confidence (42%). The PCT TechAssist app screenshot (IMG_8036) shows all five circuits — Red, Green, Yellow, Brown, and Black — as 'Verified' with no defects listed, which would suggest the sensor alert may have been a false positive or a transient fault. However, insufficient photographic documentation of the individual brake lights illuminated prevents a definitive 'No Defect Detected' determination.

Photo Evidence: The photo set includes: a PCT Sensor Details screenshot (IMG_8036) confirming all circuits verified green; a Gateway Details screenshot (IMG_8035) showing the SmartTrailer gateway SV2601702 connected to an Amazon customer account with 4.2V supply voltage and two sensors flagged (ABS Fault Code and ATIS Lamp not connected/unverified); an exterior shot of the trailer rear (TC_07606) showing a single illuminated red brake/tail light on the curbside; a nosebox wiring photo (TC_07607) showing wiring connections but with notable complexity and what appears to be multiple aftermarket or non-standard wire runs; trailer ID/exterior photos (TC_07603, TC_07599, TC_07605, TC_07600, TC_07601, TC_07604) showing the trailer number AZNG/SV2601702, Indiana plate PE92968, rear corner and side marker lighting. Critically absent are individual illuminated photos of all brake lights in the RED circuit — particularly the roadside brake light — and a clear, well-lit nosebox photo showing all terminal connections. The ATIS Lamp sensor showing 'Not Connected / Unverified' in IMG_8035 is also a concern that was not addressed in the notes.

Vendor Compliance: Vendor compliance with the LCM troubleshooting procedure is partial at best. The vendor did use the PCT TechAssist app and captured the Sensor Details verification screenshot, which is a positive. However, they did not provide photos of each individual light in the RED (Brake) circuit fully illuminated as required by the procedure. The nosebox photo (TC_07607) is provided but the wiring complexity is not explained or annotated, and the photo quality/angle does not allow a thorough assessment of connector condition or potential bypass of the LCM insert. The technician notes are generic ('no issue found with any of the lights') and do not reference a specific feedback category from the required list, nor do they explain the root cause of the original LCM alert. The notes also lack detail about what specifically was inspected on the RED circuit.

Repair Summary: No repairs were made to the lighting system. The line items consist of two indirect electrical charges, a PCT sensor activation labor entry (0.1 hr, $109.90), a lot service hourly labor charge (0.5 hr, $75.00), and a shop supply/environmental fee ($3.05). No lighting parts, connectors, or wiring components were replaced. The alerting RED/Brake circuit was not physically repaired, which is consistent with the vendor's finding of no defect. However, the lack of a confirmed and documented root cause means it is unclear whether the original alert was a true transient fault, a loose connection that self-resolved, or a sensor anomaly.

Key Concerns: Several concerns warrant flagging for this work order. First, the Gateway Details screenshot (IMG_8035) reveals that the 'ATIS Lamp' sensor was 'Not Connected' and 'Unverified' — this is a secondary defect that was not addressed or even mentioned in the technician notes, representing a missed finding. Second, the nosebox wiring (TC_07607) appears complex and potentially non-standard; no explanation is provided by the technician. Third, the absence of illuminated individual light photos for each brake lamp in the RED circuit means the PCT app result alone is relied upon for clearance, which is insufficient per the troubleshooting procedure. Fourth, the line item categorization (PCT sensor activation under tire pressure/speed sensor) appears to be miscategorized in the billing system and does not accurately reflect the work performed. Overall, while the PCT app result suggests no active lighting fault at time of inspection, the documentation gaps and unresolved ATIS sensor issue reduce confidence in the completeness of this work order.