LCM Alert Validation

Confidence

Failure Category

Lighting

Subcategory

Lighting - Failed Light

Sensor Verdict: The LCM BLACK circuit alert is assessed as 'Defect Detected' with 88% confidence. The vendor's own diagnostic narrative confirms that the BLACK circuit (clearance/license plate) had wiring issues, and additionally uncovered BROWN circuit anomalies. The fact that marker lights were energizing instead of tail lights — and only 2 of 4 tail lights were functioning — constitutes a legitimate, multi-point wiring defect that would plausibly generate an LCM alert. The confidence is slightly below maximum because no TechAssist app screenshots were provided to formally verify circuit restoration, leaving residual uncertainty about final circuit health post-repair.

Photo Evidence: The two submitted photos (both labeled MUDFLAPS.jpeg) show the underside/rear axle area of a semi-trailer at what appears to be a dock or yard, with yellow wheel chocks visible in the foreground. Neither photo documents any lighting condition — no tail lights illuminated, no marker lights, no clearance lights, no license plate lights, and no nosebox imagery. There are no TechAssist app completion screenshots. The photos are entirely non-compliant with the required documentation standard and provide zero evidentiary value regarding the lighting repair outcome. It is unclear why mudflap-area photos were submitted for a lighting circuit work order.

Vendor Compliance: The vendor did not follow the LCM troubleshooting procedure. The TechAssist (PCT) app was not used, and no 'Verified' green circuit confirmation screenshot was provided. No photos of any illuminated lights were submitted across any of the 5 circuits. There is no nosebox wiring photo. The technician notes do reference specific diagnostic findings (incorrectly wired harness, marker lights on tail circuit, only 2 of 4 tails functional), which aligns with the expected feedback category of 'wiring installed incorrectly,' but the documentation falls well short of the required standard. The vendor also did not submit any line items (parts or labor charges are listed as unavailable), which limits auditability.

Repair Summary: The repair performed involved re-drilling all tail light assemblies and correcting the wiring harness that had been incorrectly routed — specifically, the harness had been wired such that marker lights were activating on the tail/BROWN circuit and the BLACK circuit was not functioning as intended. The correction addressed both the BLACK and BROWN circuits simultaneously. No parts line items were recorded, so it is impossible to verify whether replacement lights, connectors, or harness segments were installed, or whether any replacement components were compliant brands. The scope of the repair appears appropriate given the described root cause.

Key Concerns: There are several notable concerns with this work order. First and most critically, the submitted photos are completely irrelevant to the repair — showing wheel chocks and trailer undercarriage rather than any lighting documentation. This raises questions about whether photos were intentionally misdirected or if there was a submission error. Second, no line items exist, making it impossible to confirm parts used or labor billed. Third, the PCT/TechAssist app was not used, meaning there is no verified post-repair confirmation that all 5 circuits are functioning correctly. Fourth, the wiring defect described (harness wired incorrectly from manufacture or prior repair) on a 2025 WABA trailer is concerning and may warrant a quality flag or review of other units from the same build batch. Overall, while the repair narrative is plausible and the sensor alert appears valid, documentation compliance is poor and follow-up verification is strongly recommended.