Call Detail: 88c4d3f0-7afd-11f1-a

← Back to comparison table

✓ Feedback submitted — thank you!

Call Start

2026-07-08 18:47

Duration

20m 32s

Contact

Martha Blenko

Issue Type

Escalation Request

V2 Outcome

Unresolved

V2 Band

Needs Improvement

Agent & Case Context

Agent

Regin Magnetico

HappyFox Case

#TE00135777

Support Country

United States

Product Family

MESH SYSTEMS

CSAT

—

Sentiment Trajectory

—

Ticket subject: No Internet Connection.

V1 Rubric Scores

Resolution2.00/5

Accuracy4.00/5

Communication1.00/5

Protocol1.00/5

Efficiency1.00/5

Overall1.8/5

V2 Rubric Scores

Resolution0.00/5

Technical0.00/5

Communication1.25/5

Ownership1.43/5

Escalation5.00/5

Customer Exp2.14/5

Overall22.3% (-13.7)

V2 Grader Summary

The agent never performed any troubleshooting or gathered product details, merely promised a callback from Level 2 and gave a phone number. While empathy was shown and a clear next‑step timeline was set, the lack of diagnostic work, ownership, and adaptation to the customer's difficulty resulted in an unresolved call.

V1 Case Analysis

Customer returned a call from Level-2 technician Paolo regarding an unspecified issue with a WHW03 node. Agent failed to gather serial number, warranty status, or technical details. Scheduled a callback to 305-442-077 within 2-3 hours after multiple unexplained holds. No troubleshooting performed.

Troubleshooting Steps

None recorded.

Key Observations

Only product reference was 'wh0 three' at [14:00], likely WHW03 — no confirmation or follow-up on model or serial number.
Customer explicitly stated difficulty understanding at [14:00], but agent did not adjust pace or clarify.
Agent placed customer on hold twice without explanation or time estimate.
Phone number discrepancy: agent provided 305-442-077; customer repeated '4544 2077' — agent did not confirm or correct.
No attempt to access case history or escalate properly — relied on vague 'pinging' a technician.
No technical inaccuracies found against the KB; all references to WHW03 and callback process were technically correct.

Positive Highlights

Agent acknowledged the Level-2 callback request and attempted to facilitate it.
Agent apologized for inconvenience, showing awareness of customer frustration.
No technical inaccuracies found in the advice given.

Agent Errors / Gaps

Failed to identify or document the actual technical issue.
Did not collect serial number, warranty status, or confirm product model despite mentioning WHW03.
Provided no troubleshooting steps or self-help guidance.
Used unexplained and lengthy hold periods, violating efficiency and communication standards.
Failed to verify or correct the callback phone number after customer repeated it incorrectly.
Did not confirm customer email or name despite initial attempt.
Mischaracterized support structure — implied Level-1 cannot assist with escalated cases, when proper escalation protocol exists.
Poor call control and pacing — customer requested to slow down, but agent continued with rapid, confusing explanations.

V2 Indicator Ratings

Resolution

R1 Not Met Issue actually resolved conf 95%

Agent never resolved the issue nor provided a definitive outcome; only asked the customer to wait for a callback.

R2 Not Met Diagnostic thoroughness conf 94%

No diagnostic or troubleshooting steps were performed; the agent only referenced a ticket without any concrete action.

R3 Not Met Correct resolution path conf 93%

The agent did not determine warranty status, product model, or appropriate support path; simply passed the case back to Level 2.

Technical Accuracy

T1 Not Met Technically accurate info conf 92%

No symptom identification or targeted questions were asked; the agent did not attempt to diagnose the problem.

T2 Not Met Appropriate tools / resources used conf 90%

The agent claimed to have reviewed the ticket but never used any tool (e.g., CRM, remote session) to gather information or verify status.

T3 Not Met No misinformation conf 90%

Provided vague or inaccurate information (e.g., “we don’t have the capability to provide it”) and gave a phone number without confirming its relevance.

Communication

C1 Partially Met Clear & professional language conf 85%

Agent kept the call open, gave a timeline (2‑3 hours), but failed to set clear expectations early and allowed long silences.

C2 Not Met Confirmed understanding conf 92%

Customer explicitly said they were having a hard time understanding; the agent did not slow down or simplify language.

Customer Ownership

O1 Not Met Ownership & empathy conf 93%

Agent immediately deferred to another department and did not take ownership of following through on the promised callback.

O2 Met Proactive follow-through conf 88%

Agent gave a concrete next step: wait 2‑3 hours for a callback and provided a phone number for contact.

O3 Not Met Closure confirmation conf 90%

No reference to prior history or case details; the agent treated the call as a new interaction.

Escalation Judgment

E1 Met Correct escalation decision conf 90%

Escalation to Level 2 was appropriate given the customer's request and lack of resolution.

E2 Met Escalation prep & handoff conf 88%

Agent communicated the escalation plan, gave the callback number, and set a timeline for the follow‑up.

Customer Experience

X1 Met Customer effort minimised conf 94%

Agent repeatedly apologized and thanked the customer, showing empathy.

X2 Not Met Tone & rapport conf 92%

Agent did not adjust pace or language despite the customer's request to slow down.

X3 Not Met Overall experience conf 91%

Customer was forced to repeat information, wait hours, and receive no resolution, creating unnecessary effort.

Call Transcript13 turns · 14 lines

Speaker 2

Welcome to links support. To ensure quality service, your call may be monitored. Certain products will be supported, while end of support products will have self help options available. Please have your serial number ready and stay on the line for assistance. While waiting, you may also visit support. link. Com for more information about your product.