zhiliang.chen@concentrix.com — Coaching Report

Week of 2026-05-25 – 2026-05-31

At a Glance

Scorecard

Scores reflect 1 call reviewed. Overall score range: 1.1 (lowest) to 1.1 (highest).

This Week's Coverage

#### Models Supported

Product model data not available for this week.

#### Problem Categories

The single CONNECTIVITY call scored very low (1.1), indicating a need for stronger technical accuracy and protocol adherence on performance-related issues. Focus should remain on this category to prevent repeat patterns.

What Went Well

No transcript highlights available for this week.

Growth Opportunities

#### Technical accuracy and troubleshooting protocol

The agent provided factually incorrect technical explanations and skipped essential troubleshooting steps for a performance issue. Good looks like:

• Verifying the exact router model and firmware version before discussing speeds.
• Running a wired speed test to establish a baseline.
• Checking for interference, signal strength, and node placement—especially for mesh systems.
• Referring to KB articles like universal_speed_diagnosis.md and universal_speed_performance.md for structured troubleshooting.

This guidance draws from the same call where the agent mischaracterized Wi‑Fi as “half‑duplex” and referenced a non‑existent “connector” to explain speed limits.

#### Operational closure and escalation

The agent promised an undefined “upgrade” but did not initiate escalation, confirm next steps, or set a callback expectation—leaving the customer without a clear path forward. Good looks like:

• Using the escalation checklist to document why the issue needs L2 support.
• Confirming the escalation process with the customer (“I’ll open a ticket and have a specialist contact you within X hours”).
• Updating the ticket status to “Escalated” and adding a follow‑up task if needed.

This guidance draws from the same call where the case was closed as “abandoned_or_vague” despite the agent’s acknowledgment that advanced support was required.

Next Week's Focus

1. Start every performance call with model/firmware verification — this prevents misdiagnosis and aligns with KB Step 1‑2.
2. Run a wired speed test before discussing wireless speeds — it establishes a baseline and isolates the issue.
3. Use the escalation checklist — document why L2 help is needed, confirm the process with the customer, and update the ticket status.
4. Practice concise next‑step language — e.g., “I’ll open an escalation ticket and have a specialist contact you within 2 business hours.”

Technical Accuracy

Improvement

Failed to follow standard protocol for speed-performance issues: no WAN speed verification, no wired baseline test, no reset, no firmware check, no node placement guidance (contradicts KB universal_speed_performance.md, universal_speed_diagnosis.md).

#TE00129512

Improvement

Promised an 'upgrade' to advanced support but did not initiate escalation, confirm process, or set callback expectation. Call closed with operational_closure_status as abandoned_or_vague.

#TE00129512

Improvement

Provided incorrect technical explanation: Wi‑Fi is full‑duplex, not half‑duplex, and does not inherently halve advertised speed. Referenced non‑existent 'connector' that could be 'reduced' to improve speed (no KB support).

#TE00129512

Coaching Moments

Improvement

Actually, it's like this: because Wi-Fi wireless is half-duplex two-way communication, so its actual output is 1200 Mbps. I don't know what he's saying. He said from the main unit to the sub-unit, the sub-unit only has 500. But the main unit also only has 500. They said it's normal.

Note: The agent mischaracterized Wi‑Fi as “half‑duplex,” which is factually incorrect (Wi‑Fi is full‑duplex), and offered no troubleshooting or escalation path. This confused the customer and failed to address the performance issue.

#TE00129512

Escalation Lessons: What L2 Did

#### #TE00129512 — Pending with Level 2

What L1 saw:

• Customer reported fluctuating Wi‑Fi speeds (60‑300 Mbps) on an MBE7000 router advertised for 500+ Mbps.
• L1 attempted no troubleshooting, mischaracterized Wi‑Fi as “half‑duplex,” and promised an undefined “upgrade” without escalation.

Why it escalated:

• The case was escalated after L1 failed to perform any diagnostics or provide a clear next step. The escalation trigger was L1’s inability to address the performance issue or define an escalation path.

What L2 did:

• Reviewed the case and requested network topology, sysinfo logs, and additional client device testing.
• Noted that iPhones cannot display link speed and suggested clearing preferred networks or testing on the 6 GHz band.
• Asked the customer to test with another wireless client device supporting 6 GHz or Wi‑Fi 7, if available.

Current state:

• The case remains pending with Level 2, awaiting customer-provided diagnostic data (topology, sysinfo logs, additional device testing).

L1 learning points:

1. Always verify the exact router model and firmware version before discussing performance.
2. For speed issues, start with a wired speed test to establish a baseline and isolate the problem.
3. Collect network topology and sysinfo logs early; these are essential for L2 diagnosis.
4. If the issue requires L2 expertise, use the escalation checklist: document why, confirm the process with the customer, and update the ticket status.

Coach Appendix

Highest-signal weekly trend: The single call revealed a critical gap in technical accuracy and escalation protocol for performance‑related issues. The agent mischaracterized Wi‑Fi technology, skipped required diagnostics, and left the customer without a clear escalation path. Focus for next coaching should reinforce model/firmware verification, structured troubleshooting (wired baseline, interference checks), and disciplined escalation practices using the escalation checklist.

This Week's Calls