Call Detail: d471d9de-79ad-11f1-a

← Back to comparison table

✓ Feedback submitted — thank you!

Call Start

2026-07-07 02:44

Duration

12m 57s

Contact

Derik Smith

Issue Type

Escalation Request

V2 Outcome

Appropriate Escalation

V2 Band

Needs Improvement

Agent & Case Context

Agent

Nathan Amores

HappyFox Case

#TE00136055

Support Country

United States

Product Family

MESH SYSTEMS

CSAT

—

Sentiment Trajectory

—

Ticket subject: MX2000_Cannot access the web ui

V1 Rubric Scores

Resolution2.00/5

Accuracy3.00/5

Communication2.00/5

Protocol1.00/5

Efficiency2.00/5

Overall2.2/5

V2 Rubric Scores

Resolution1.25/5

Technical2.50/5

Communication0.00/5

Ownership2.86/5

Escalation5.00/5

Customer Exp0.00/5

Overall36.1% (-7.9)

V2 Grader Summary

The agent correctly escalated the call to a Level‑2 technician and provided a callback number and name, but performed no troubleshooting, gave confusing timing information, showed no empathy, and failed to reference case history. The issue remained unresolved, resulting in an appropriate escalation outcome.

V1 Case Analysis

Customer (Dirk Smith) requested Level-2 escalation due to a two-day internet outage. Agent arranged callback from 'John' at 430-767-6060 but did not collect product model, serial number, or case details. No troubleshooting performed.

Troubleshooting Steps

None recorded.

Key Observations

Agent did not collect product model, serial number, or warranty information despite handling an escalation request.
Provided contradictory callback times (8:30 PM, 10:00 AM, 2:00 AM), creating confusion about when the callback would occur.
Shared a direct personal phone number (430-767-6060) for the Level-2 technician, bypassing standard case management and escalation workflows.
No HappyFox case number was cited or created, despite customer mentioning a prior two-hour call with another agent.
No troubleshooting steps were performed, even though basic checks (e.g., modem reboot, LED status) could have been attempted.

Positive Highlights

Agent acknowledged customer urgency and frustration, responding promptly to the escalation request.
Successfully connected the customer with a Level-2 resource, setting a concrete next step (callback).
Maintained a polite and professional tone throughout the interaction.

Agent Errors / Gaps

Failed to collect product model number, serial number, or warranty status (critical protocol failure for escalation).
Did not reference or verify any existing case, despite customer stating they had a prior two-hour call with another agent.
Provided inconsistent and contradictory callback timing (8:30 PM, 10:00 AM, 2:00 AM), undermining customer trust and clarity.
Shared a direct personal phone number instead of using internal escalation workflows, violating support protocol and creating security/consistency risks.
Performed no troubleshooting or diagnostic steps before arranging escalation, missing an opportunity to resolve the issue at Level-1.

V2 Indicator Ratings

Resolution

R1 Not Met Issue actually resolved conf 97%

Agent only promised a callback; the customer's internet issue remained unresolved.

R2 Not Met Diagnostic thoroughness conf 96%

No diagnostic or troubleshooting steps were performed.

R3 Met Correct resolution path conf 94%

Agent correctly identified escalation to a Level‑2 technician as the appropriate path and initiated it.

Technical Accuracy

T1 Not Met Technically accurate info conf 95%

Agent did not ask any symptom‑related questions or follow a diagnostic flow.

T2 Not Applicable Appropriate tools / resources used conf 90%

No tools, logs, or remote sessions were referenced or required in the interaction.

T3 Met No misinformation conf 93%

Agent gave accurate information about the callback number and timing.

Communication

C1 Not Met Clear & professional language conf 94%

Agent gave confusing, contradictory time frames (8:30, 2:00 AM, 11:20) and did not clearly frame the call.

C2 Not Met Confirmed understanding conf 92%

Agent did not acknowledge the customer's frustration or adjust language to the customer's state.

Customer Ownership

O1 Met Ownership & empathy conf 91%

Agent took responsibility for obtaining a Level‑2 callback and did not transfer the call away.

O2 Partially Met Proactive follow-through conf 88%

Agent gave a callback time and phone number, but the timing details were inconsistent and not clearly realistic.

O3 Not Met Closure confirmation conf 95%

Agent did not reference the earlier interaction or any case history; treated the call as new.

Escalation Judgment

E1 Met Correct escalation decision conf 96%

Escalation to a Level‑2 technician was correctly decided based on the customer's request.

E2 Met Escalation prep & handoff conf 95%

Agent provided the Level‑2 tech’s name (John), phone number, and promised call‑back time.

Customer Experience

X1 Not Met Customer effort minimised conf 94%

No empathy statements; agent did not acknowledge the customer's repeated contact or frustration.

X2 Not Met Tone & rapport conf 92%

Agent maintained a scripted, detached tone and did not adapt to the customer's urgency.

X3 Not Met Overall experience conf 93%

Customer was left waiting for a callback without any immediate resolution, increasing effort.

Call Transcript9 turns · 10 lines

Speaker 2

Welcome to Lynks' 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 dot Lynks dot com for more information about your product. [silence]