LCM Alert Validation

Confidence

Failure Category

Lighting

Subcategory

Recently Replaced Light

Sensor Verdict: The LCM system generated a GREEN circuit (Right Turn) alert on trailer V502548 at site DCA1. Based on the technician's notes indicating a 13.8V reading and normally operating lights, the sensor alert appears to have been a false positive or a transient fault. However, confidence in this determination is moderate (55%) due to the significant lack of supporting documentation and non-compliant photo evidence. Without a verified TechAssist app screenshot confirming all five circuits green, the no-fault finding cannot be fully validated.

Photo Evidence: The two photos attached to this work order both depict mudflaps on the trailer — one showing a full mudflap hanging near the rear tire, and the second showing a closer view of the mudflap bracket and mounting hardware. Neither photo shows any lighting component, the nosebox, wiring harness, or a TechAssist app screenshot. These photos are entirely irrelevant to the GREEN circuit alert and provide zero evidentiary value in confirming or denying a lighting system defect. This is a critical documentation failure.

Vendor Compliance: The vendor (TA) did not follow the LCM troubleshooting procedure as instructed. The procedure explicitly requires: (1) use of the Phillips Connect TechAssist app, (2) photographs of each light illuminated, (3) a clear photo of the nosebox wiring, and (4) a TechAssist app completion screenshot showing a green 'Verified' status beside each of the five circuits. None of these requirements were met. The technician's notes reference a 'Tech Assist App screenshot posted,' but the only photos on file are of mudflaps. There is no screenshot, no light photos, and no nosebox photo. Vendor compliance is rated as non-compliant.

Repair Summary: No repairs were made on this work order, which is consistent with a no-fault finding. There are no line items for parts or labor, and the technician confirmed the circuit was operating normally. If the no-fault determination is accurate, this would be an appropriate outcome — but the absence of documentation means there is no way to verify the technician actually performed the required inspection steps rather than simply closing the ticket without thorough investigation.

Key Concerns: There are several significant concerns with this work order. First, the photos are completely wrong — mudflap photos were submitted instead of lighting/nosebox documentation, suggesting either a photo upload error or that the technician did not photograph the correct components. Second, the technician claims a TechAssist screenshot was posted, but it is not present in this record, which raises questions about whether PCT was actually used. Third, no line items were submitted, which while expected for a no-fault finding, combined with the missing documentation, creates a pattern consistent with a cursory inspection. This work order should be flagged for vendor follow-up to obtain the correct photos and PCT confirmation before fully accepting the no-fault outcome.