Call Detail: 476dc3be-5f21-11f1-b

← Back to comparison table

✓ Feedback submitted — thank you!

Call Start

2026-06-03 07:53

Duration

8m 55s

Contact

朱先生

Issue Type

WiFi Connectivity

V2 Outcome

Unresolved

V2 Band

Needs Improvement

Agent & Case Context

Agent

Weiyu Zeng

HappyFox Case

#LTS00131994

Support Country

Hong Kong

Product Family

OTHERS

CSAT

—

Sentiment Trajectory

—

Ticket subject: BE5000 偶尔掉线

V1 Rubric Scores

Resolution2.00/5

Accuracy1.00/5

Communication2.00/5

Protocol2.00/5

Efficiency2.00/5

Overall1.8/5

V2 Rubric Scores

Resolution0.94/5

Technical0.00/5

Communication1.25/5

Ownership0.00/5

EscalationN/A

Customer Exp1.07/5

Overall12.8% (-23.2)

V2 Grader Summary

The agent failed to identify the correct model, provided technically inaccurate guidance (e.g., '2.4 Gbps'), and offered no verified troubleshooting steps. While some basic diagnostics were attempted, the interaction lacked structure, clarity, and ownership, leaving the customer to self-resolve. The issue remains unresolved with no effective path forward established.

V1 Case Analysis

Customer reports frequent Wi‑Fi disconnects on a newly purchased Linksys BE5000; agent suggested separating 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands via the router web UI but did not verify a fix.

Troubleshooting Steps

Confirmed router LED is white and internet is present.
Asked about other devices experiencing the issue.
Suggested separating 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands via the router’s web UI.

Key Observations

Agent repeatedly mis‑identified the product model (BOYEE, MBE5000, etc.).
Provided inaccurate technical references ("backend of Low Tide", Wi‑Fi 7/6 Gbps).
Did not follow a standard troubleshooting flow (no power‑cycle, firmware check, interference scan).
No verification of a fix before ending the call.

Positive Highlights

Agent asked about LED status and whether internet was still available.

Agent Errors / Gaps

Failed to capture the correct product model number.
Gave incorrect technical information about band separation and Wi‑Fi standards.
Skipped basic troubleshooting steps such as power‑cycle and firmware verification.
Did not confirm whether the suggested fix resolved the issue.

V2 Indicator Ratings

Resolution

R1 Not Met Issue actually resolved conf 98%

Agent did not resolve the issue or provide a verifiable fix; only suggested a future self-help step ('try separating bands tonight') with no confirmation or follow-up mechanism.

R2 Partially Met Diagnostic thoroughness conf 95%

Agent asked basic diagnostic questions (router light color, other affected devices) and identified a potential cause (band interference), but skipped essential steps like power cycle, firmware check, or channel width — relying solely on one unverified hypothesis.

R3 Not Met Correct resolution path conf 96%

Agent recommended band separation without confirming the actual model, checking firmware, or ruling out common causes like overload or DFS issues — choosing an inappropriate path based on guesswork rather than evidence.

Technical Accuracy

T1 Not Met Technically accurate info conf 97%

Agent repeatedly failed to identify the correct model (e.g., 'MBE5000?', 'BOY-E5000') and did not establish a logical diagnostic sequence — root cause was assumed, not determined.

T2 Not Met Appropriate tools / resources used conf 95%

No tools were used (no KB reference, no remote access attempt, no dashboard verification); troubleshooting was based on verbal assumptions without leveraging any technical resources.

T3 Not Met No misinformation conf 98%

Agent made materially incorrect statements: referred to '2.4 Gbps' and '5 Gbps' (should be GHz), claimed '6 Gbps Wi-Fi' and 'Wi-Fi 7 setting not open in Hong Kong' — all technically inaccurate and misleading.

Communication

C1 Partially Met Clear & professional language conf 94%

Agent acknowledged the customer’s constraints and attempted to guide the interaction, but lacked structure, used filler language ('I understand... Hmm'), and failed to set clear expectations or agenda.

C2 Not Met Confirmed understanding conf 96%

Agent used confusing terms ('backend of Low Tide', '2.4 Gbps') and did not adapt to customer confusion; no comprehension checks were performed despite customer saying 'I don't understand'.

Customer Ownership

O1 Not Met Ownership & empathy conf 97%

Agent did not take ownership — deferred action to the customer ('try tonight'), encouraged a callback, and made no commitment to track or resolve the issue.

O2 Not Met Proactive follow-through conf 95%

Next steps were vague ('try tonight', 'call back during business hours') — no specific instructions, timeline, or accountability established.

O3 Not Applicable Closure confirmation conf 100%

This was the first contact; no prior case history exists to maintain continuity.

Escalation Judgment

E1 Not Applicable Correct escalation decision conf 100%

No escalation occurred and none was warranted — issue was within L1 scope and customer declined immediate action.

E2 Not Applicable Escalation prep & handoff conf 100%

No escalation occurred; therefore execution cannot be assessed.

Customer Experience

X1 Partially Met Customer effort minimised conf 93%

Agent expressed 'I understand' multiple times, showing basic empathy, but did not acknowledge frustration or effort specifically — remained transactional under pressure.

X2 Not Met Tone & rapport conf 95%

Agent continued using inaccurate technical language despite customer confusion and did not adjust tone, pace, or terminology to improve engagement.

X3 Not Met Overall experience conf 96%

Customer was told to repeat the entire process later and call back, increasing effort; no steps were simplified or handled agent-side to reduce friction.

Call Transcript117 turns · 134 lines

Speaker 2

Welcome to Linksys Support. To assure quality service, your call may be monitored. To continue in English, press 1 now.