aysah.bagumbaran — Coaching Report

Week of 2026-05-25 – 2026-05-31


At a Glance

Calls HandledAvg Handle TimeTop ProductTop ProblemCases DocumentedCases Escalated
261m 47sWHW03CONNECTIVITY262

Scorecard

DimensionThis WeekCalls Reviewed
Accuracy2.2026
Protocol1.8026
Communication2.3026
Overall2.3026

26 calls reviewed. Overall score range: 1.3 – 3.6.


This Week's Coverage

Models Supported

ModelCallsAvg Score
WHW0352.20
MX200021.60
MR830022.30
EA730013.00
RE900012.80
MR900011.70
MR550011.80
E845011.50
E735021.50
MX620022.30
EA690011.40
RE630011.30
SE300513.40
RE670013.30

Lower scores on MX2000 calls suggest familiarity gaps with this device’s setup flow.

Problem Categories

CategoryCallsAvg ScoreFocus Area?
CONNECTIVITY102.00
SETUP62.00
GENERAL INQUIRY42.40
ACCESS22.40
CONFIGURATION42.60

Connectivity and Setup categories are flagged for deeper review.

Connectivity issues show a pattern of incomplete troubleshooting and escalation without verification.

Setup calls often lacked model-specific guidance and clear next steps, leading to unresolved cases.


What Went Well

Clear communication of self-help paths

“Provided a self-help path (email instructions, AI chatbot) despite out-of-warranty status, aligning with policy to offer free resources.”

#LTS00130889

Accurate technical guidance for configuration

“Correctly identified the MX6200 model and provided accurate step-by-step instructions for accessing web UI and renaming SSIDs via http://[REDACTED_PHONE].”

#LTS00130947


Growth Opportunities

Materially incorrect technical information

“Claimed the MX2000 router can deliver up to 3 Gbps Wi‑Fi speed, which is factually incorrect per the MX2000’s specifications in the KB.”

#TE00130759

What better looks like:

PCI compliance violation

“Collected full credit‑card number, expiration date, CVV, and ZIP over unsecured line, violating PCI compliance.”

#LTS00131057

What better looks like:


Next Week's Focus

  1. Double‑check product specs before discussing performance (e.g., speeds, range, features).
  2. Avoid collecting sensitive payment data over the phone; use secure portals.
  3. Confirm model and warranty status early in every call to guide appropriate support paths.
  4. For connectivity issues, run standard diagnostics (reset, WAN check, LED verification) before escalating.

Technical Accuracy

Improvement

No dedicated technical accuracy signals were extracted this week. Review the Growth Opportunities and Escalation Lessons sections for technical coaching patterns.

Coaching Moments

Improvement

“Provided three invalid registration URLs: register.lingncist.com, register.linkages.com, and register.rgsestination.com (KB reference: https://support.linksys.com/kb/article/90-en/).”

#TE00130759

Improvement

“Incorrectly asserted that a separate modem-router setup inherently reduces internet speed compared to a modem-router combo, demonstrating a fundamental technical inaccuracy.”

#TE00130759

Improvement

“Failed to perform any standard troubleshooting for a Wi‑Fi performance issue (no speed test, no WAN check, no node reset, no placement check per universal_speed_performance.md and velop_wifi_connectivity.md).”

#TE00130759

Improvement

“Misrepresented LED behavior: WHW01 does not use solid purple/pink; solid white indicates online.”

#LTS00131057

Improvement

“Misidentified LED states: instructed customer to expect solid purple/pink, but WHW03 uses solid white for online.”

#LTS00131254

Improvement

“Failed to verify wired WAN connectivity before blaming ISP.”

#LTS00131254

Improvement

“Did not collect serial number or verify warranty status despite paid support being processed.”

#LTS00131254

Improvement

“Incorrectly concluded low speed (19 Mbps) was root cause without confirming customer's subscribed tier.”

#LTS00131254


Escalation Lessons: What L2 Did

#TE00130759 — Pending with Level 2

What L1 sawWhy it escalatedRelated call chainWhat L2 didCurrent stateL1 learning points
Customer reported slow speeds and poor range on a new MX2000 mesh system. L1 collected serial number, attempted warranty verification, and escalated to Level 2 with a callback expectation.Escalation trigger was not explicit in the available notes.This was a new case; no prior calls in the chain.L2 reviewed the case, discussed it in a Mission Escalation meeting, and prepared troubleshooting steps: use another server for speed testing, verify RSSI levels, test device connection close to the parent node, and schedule a follow-up call.Callback – L2 scheduled a follow-up call to the customer.1. Collect and verify model, serial number, firmware version, and ISP details before escalation. <br>2. Perform basic speed and connectivity tests (e.g., speed test from another device, RSSI check, WAN status). <br>3. Document exact troubleshooting steps taken and results to inform L2.
What L1 sawWhy it escalatedRelated call chainWhat L2 didCurrent stateL1 learning points
Customer unable to access cloud account remotely on MR5500. L1 collected account details and escalated to Level 2 with callback expectation.Customer requested escalation after L1 indicated the account was locked out and needed to wait 24 hours.This was a repeat contact; previous agent advised waiting 24 hours.L2 reviewed the case, confirmed the account lock-out policy, and determined that remote app access had been discontinued. L2 provided guidance to use the local web interface instead.Resolved – L2 confirmed the issue was due to discontinued cloud service and provided alternative access method.1. Verify current service status (e.g., cloud account access) before advising customers. <br>2. Inform customers of any service discontinuations and provide alternative solutions. <br>3. Document account lock-out reasons and next steps clearly.

Coach Appendix