LCM Alert Validation

Confidence

Failure Category

Lighting

Subcategory

Lighting - Failed Light

Sensor Verdict: The LCM sensor's RED (Brake) circuit alert was validated as a genuine defect with high confidence (90%). The vendor's technician found and replaced a bad Grote light in the rear of the trailer, which aligns precisely with the faulted circuit reported by the sensor. The TechAssist app screenshot confirms all five circuits — Red, Green, Yellow, Brown, and Black — were verified post-repair with no remaining defects, strongly supporting sensor accuracy.

Photo Evidence: The photo set provides substantial documentation of the lighting system condition. Photos 1 and 8 (IMG_6811) show a small red marker/clearance-type light illuminated at the rear corner of the trailer, consistent with a rear red circuit component. Photo 10 (IMG_6809) shows a rear brake/turn light assembly with both a red and a yellow LED lamp illuminated, suggesting functional operation post-repair. Photos 4, 5, and 6 (IMG_6812, IMG_6817, IMG_6815) show the rear of trailer V508663 with tail lights illuminated, providing good documentation of rear lamp function. Photo 13 (IMG_6807) shows a rear corner light cluster with a yellow LED and red lamp lit. Photos 3 and 11 (IMG_6819, IMG_6816) depict removed/replaced light components — notably a white multi-LED clearance/marker light being held in hand and another removed light with wiring on the ground, indicating parts were swapped out. Photo 16 (IMG_6822) provides a clear image of the nosebox wiring with multiple colored wires visible and the Smart 7 box open, consistent with the technician's note about snugging studs. Photo 7 (IMG_6823) is the TechAssist app screenshot confirming all circuits verified. Photos 2, 9, 12, 14, and 17 show side marker/midturn lights in amber, appearing functional. While coverage is reasonably comprehensive, not every individual light in the full red brake circuit is individually photographed and confirmed illuminated — the rear lamp assembly photos are somewhat grouped rather than each lamp isolated.

Vendor Compliance: The vendor demonstrated acceptable compliance with the LCM troubleshooting procedure. The TechAssist app was used and a screenshot was provided showing all five circuits verified (Photo 7/IMG_6823). The nosebox was opened and photographed (Photo 16). Multiple photos of illuminated lights were submitted covering front, side, and rear positions. However, there is a minor gap: the photos do not isolate every individual lamp in the red brake circuit in a clearly labeled, sequential manner, and no line items (parts/labor) were submitted, which limits documentation of the specific replacement part used and associated costs.

Repair Summary: The technician removed and replaced a defective Grote rear light on the RED circuit. Additionally, the Smart 7 nosebox was opened and all studs were snugged to ensure proper electrical connections. No other defects were found. The replacement light shown in Photos 3 and 11 appears to be a white/clear multi-LED strip-style lamp, which may be a clearance or marker light rather than a traditional Grote brake lamp — this is worth noting as the exact replacement part specification is unconfirmed due to the absence of line items. The repair appears to have been effective as all circuits passed TechAssist verification post-repair.

Key Concerns: The primary concern is the complete absence of parts and labor line items, which prevents verification of the specific Grote replacement part number, brand compliance, and billing accuracy. It is unclear whether the replacement light shown in the hand (Photo 3) is a compliant Grote-brand unit or a substitute. Additionally, the removed light with wiring (Photo 11) appears to be a small multi-LED bar-style lamp, which may suggest a clearance or auxiliary light rather than a primary brake lamp — the exact failure position within the rear assembly should be clarified. The Smart 7 nosebox wiring photo (Photo 16) shows a dense wiring bundle which should be monitored for potential future connection issues. Overall, the repair appears legitimate and the sensor performed correctly, but the missing line items represent a documentation gap that should be flagged for vendor follow-up.