Call Detail: 3b34db0e-7ffc-11f1-9

← Back to comparison table

✓ Feedback submitted — thank you!

Call Start

2026-07-15 03:21

Duration

15m 25s

Contact

+85298459887

Issue Type

Hardware Fault

V2 Outcome

Unresolved

V2 Band

Needs Improvement

Agent & Case Context

Agent

Xiangjie Zhang

HappyFox Case

#TE00132899

Support Country

Hong Kong

Product Family

MESH SYSTEMS

CSAT

—

Sentiment Trajectory

—

Ticket subject: MX6200 还是会断线

V1 Rubric Scores

Resolution1.00/5

Accuracy3.00/5

Communication1.00/5

Protocol1.00/5

Efficiency1.00/5

Overall1.6/5

V2 Rubric Scores

Resolution0.62/5

Technical0.00/5

Communication0.00/5

Ownership3.21/5

Escalation4.00/5

Customer Exp1.07/5

Overall23.5% (-8.5)

V2 Grader Summary

The agent failed to resolve the issue or conduct any meaningful troubleshooting, provided materially inaccurate technical guidance about router parameter transfers, and lacked effective communication and ownership. While escalation was appropriately triggered by customer frustration, it was poorly executed without concrete next steps or case details, leaving the customer unsupported and frustrated. The interaction meets criteria for Unresolved outcome due to absent resolution and troubleshooting.

V1 Case Analysis

Customer (Mr. Lau) reports EA6200 router non-functional; referenced prior EA7500 replacement. Agent performed no troubleshooting, failed to collect model/serial/warranty details, and provided only vague escalation to headquarters with no case number or timeline. Customer threatened consumer council/media exposure.

Troubleshooting Steps

None recorded.

Key Observations

Agent failed to collect critical device details (serial number, warranty status) despite their relevance to hardware fault resolution
No technical troubleshooting performed for the reported hardware fault
Agent used excessive passive listening ('mm-hmm') without providing actionable guidance or setting clear expectations
Customer explicitly requested supervisor transfer at [13:30] which was denied with 'They're not available to take calls'
Agent referenced prior headquarters email contact at [13:16] but failed to confirm or document its contents
Customer threatened external escalation to Hong Kong Consumer Council and media due to perceived unresolved issue

Positive Highlights

Agent expressed understanding and apologized for delays
Agent ultimately committed to escalating the issue to headquarters

Agent Errors / Gaps

Failed to verify or record product model/serial number and warranty status for hardware fault troubleshooting
Did not perform any standard troubleshooting steps (reboot, WAN check, firmware verification) despite KB guidance
Provided no clear escalation path or timeline beyond vague '1-2 day' promise without case number
Denied supervisor transfer request despite customer frustration and repeated demands
Excessive passive listening without directional guidance, leading to customer perception of being ignored
Failed to validate or act on customer's statement about lost EA7500, which blocked parameter transfer option
Did not document or confirm prior headquarters communication referenced at [13:16]

V2 Indicator Ratings

Resolution

R1 Not Met Issue actually resolved conf 97%

The agent never provided a replacement, repair, or any concrete resolution; the customer remains without a working router. Agent only offered vague promises to 'report' and 'push' the issue without actionable steps.

R2 Not Met Diagnostic thoroughness conf 96%

No troubleshooting steps were taken (no reboot, firmware check, login test, or diagnostic questions). Agent relied solely on customer’s verbal account and repeated 'mm-hmm' responses without advancing the case.

R3 Partially Met Correct resolution path conf 85%

Agent chose to escalate rather than dismiss the out-of-warranty case, which aligns with best-effort support standards, but failed to verify warranty status, offer self-service tools, or confirm the customer had attempted basic troubleshooting.

Technical Accuracy

T1 Not Met Technically accurate info conf 96%

Agent did not ask diagnostic questions, identify symptoms beyond customer statements, or attempt to isolate root cause. No logical diagnostic process was applied; interaction consisted of filler responses ('mm-hmm') without targeted investigation.

T2 Not Met Appropriate tools / resources used conf 93%

No tools (case lookup, firmware check, remote diagnostics, or internal knowledge base) were referenced or used. Agent relied exclusively on the customer’s verbal account without verification or evidence-based guidance.

T3 Not Met No misinformation conf 95%

Agent claimed parameters from an EA7500 must be copied to the EA6200 ('copy some parameters to your new EA6200'), which is unsupported by KB and contradicts standard setup procedures requiring use of the Smart Setup Wizard and ISP credentials only.

Communication

C1 Not Met Clear & professional language conf 95%

Call lacked framing, agenda, or transitions. Agent failed to control the interaction, allowing customer frustration to dominate without redirection, clear expectations, or managed hold transitions.

C2 Not Met Confirmed understanding conf 94%

Agent used repetitive, generic responses ('mm-hmm', 'I understand') without adapting terminology, confirming understanding, or addressing the customer’s escalating emotional state. No comprehension checks or accessibility adjustments were made.

Customer Ownership

O1 Partially Met Ownership & empathy conf 84%

Agent remained on the call and promised to escalate, showing some ownership, but provided no case number, action plan, or personal accountability beyond vague statements like 'I will report this'.

O2 Partially Met Proactive follow-through conf 87%

Agent gave a timeline ('within the next day or two') but did not specify who would respond, what actions would be taken, or confirm follow-up method. No concrete next steps or realistic ownership was established.

O3 Met Closure confirmation conf 89%

Agent referenced prior contact history ('last time you called', 'previous email') and did not re-ask information already documented, demonstrating case continuity and use of existing records.

Escalation Judgment

E1 Met Correct escalation decision conf 92%

Escalation was triggered by valid criteria: customer expressed frustration over multiple unresolved contacts and explicitly requested a supervisor ('Can I talk to your supervisor directly?'), meeting the Angry Customer Protocol escalation trigger.

E2 Partially Met Escalation prep & handoff conf 88%

Agent stated intent to escalate but did not specify the escalation team, provide a case number, or confirm how/when the customer would be contacted by the next level. Escalation execution lacked critical details.

Customer Experience

X1 Partially Met Customer effort minimised conf 83%

Agent used scripted phrases ('I understand', 'sorry about that') to acknowledge frustration but responses lacked sincerity, specificity, or acknowledgment of repeated effort. Empathy was generic and not tailored to the customer’s situation.

X2 Not Met Tone & rapport conf 90%

Agent maintained a passive, monotone response pattern despite customer’s rising anger, failing to adapt pace, tone, or engagement level. Communication remained one-size-fits-all without adjustment for emotional state.

X3 Not Met Overall experience conf 91%

Customer repeated prior actions, emails, and timelines multiple times. Agent did not reduce effort by summarizing information, acting on existing records, or streamlining steps (e.g., pulling up prior photos or test results).

Call Transcript65 turns · 109 lines

Speaker 2

Welcome to Linksys Support. To assure quality service, your call may be monitored. To continue in English, press 1 now. 普通話,請按R。廣東話,請按3字。請等候技術資源。你可能需要網絡服務供應商提供給你的帳戶密碼。請你準備好。普通話,請按R。廣東話,請按3字。請等候技術資源。你可能需要網絡服務供應商提供給你的帳戶密碼。請你準備好。