LCM Alert Validation

Confidence

Failure Category

Lighting

Subcategory

Lighting - Failed Light

Sensor Verdict: The LCM sensor alert on the BROWN (Marker) circuit is assessed as 'Defect Detected' with 88% confidence. The technician's findings directly corroborate the sensor alert — a top clearance light was found to be completely out during the PCT TechAssist-guided light test. The BROWN circuit on a trailer lighting system governs marker and clearance lamps, and the discovery of an inoperative clearance/marker lamp is fully consistent with what would trigger this alert. Confidence is not 100% because the technician notes are phonetically misspelled and lack granular diagnostic detail (e.g., measured resistance or voltage readings), but the convergence of the app-verified circuit test, the physical repair of a marker lamp, and the parts billed leaves little doubt that the sensor correctly identified a real defect.

Photo Evidence: The technician's notes state that photos were uploaded and all circuits were illuminated during the TechAssist app test, including a completion screenshot showing circuits verified. Without access to the actual attached images, this assessment relies on the technician's attestation. The notes indicate that a TechAssist app completion screenshot was captured ('VERIFIED ALL CIRCUITS IN TECH APP DURING TEST') and that pictures were uploaded per the procedure. Based on the available documentation, photos appear to have been submitted, and the assessment is marked 'Yes.' However, a reviewer should independently confirm that all five circuit illumination photos, the nosebox wiring photo, and the TechAssist verified screenshot are present in the WO image gallery before finalizing compliance scoring.

Vendor Compliance: The vendor (TA) largely followed the LCM troubleshooting procedure. The technician explicitly referenced using the TechAssist app, performed a full light circuit test across all five circuits, and noted that all circuits were verified green in the app. The feedback provided — a top clearance light out, replaced with a new LED marker lamp — maps cleanly to the 'full light out' category from the expected feedback list. The notes state photos were uploaded. Deductions apply because the technician notes are difficult to parse due to heavy phonetic spelling errors ('BEONSIET,' 'PEROFMRED,' 'VERFIRED,' 'LIGTH,' 'R EPLACING'), which reduces documentation quality and suggests the notes were not carefully reviewed before submission. No PCT support call was made, which is appropriate given the defect was confirmed and repaired on-site.

Repair Summary: The repair involved R&R of one marker/clearance light assembly, replacement of one Mini LED Marker Red lamp (part 33250R) and one grommet (33700). Labor lines reflect approximately 0.5 hours of lighting labor plus 0.2 hours of lot service labor, consistent with a single lamp replacement. The alerting BROWN (Marker) circuit was directly addressed. The compliant brand flag is raised as 'NO' — the 33250R Mini LED Marker Red appears to be a non-Phillips/Grote brand (likely a third-party or aftermarket supplier), which may not meet fleet lamp specification requirements. Additionally, the work order contains tire/TPMS sensor line items (Amazon PCT Sensor Activation, speed sensor labor) that appear unrelated to the lighting defect, suggesting either bundled unrelated work or a billing anomaly that should be reviewed.

Key Concerns: (1) Non-compliant lamp brand — The 33250R Mini LED Marker Red should be verified against the approved lamp brand list; if Phillips or Grote is required, this part does not appear to meet that standard. (2) Unrelated line items — TPMS/speed sensor activation and associated labor charges appear on this lighting WO, which warrants billing review to ensure charges are not being cross-applied. (3) Note quality — The technician's written notes are heavily garbled, undermining documentation integrity. (4) Two duplicate 'LITE MECHANICAL' indirect charge lines — These duplicated indirect charges should be reviewed for accuracy. Overall, the core repair outcome is sound and the sensor performed correctly, but billing hygiene and parts compliance require follow-up.