Is this customer remedy actually finished?
Take one repair or replacement case your business has already agreed to handle. Check the promise against what happened, identify what remains open and record the reason for your next decision.
You will leave with a case-closeout record you can use with your team. It can show completed obligations, work still waiting, a decision needed or an outcome that remains unconfirmed. You do not need to decide on AI to use it.
Start with the promise you are checking
Choose one existing case. Open the agreement, the relevant messages and whatever records your team used to carry out the remedy. Work in your own document; there are no customer details to submit on this page.
Write the current promise in plain language. “Arrange a replacement of the agreed model and collect the faulty appliance” is more useful than “resolve complaint.” Include any conditions the business and customer agreed to, along with where those conditions are recorded.
Then check whether the promise changed. If a different model was offered, distinguish the person who authorized that option from the customer agreeing to it. A supplier suggesting a substitute does not establish either decision.
Capture these fields:
- Case reference: A reference your team can use to find the right case. Avoid adding personal information the assessment does not need.
- Current agreed remedy: What the business has committed to do.
- Source of that agreement: The record or message and its relevant version.
- Authorized changes: What changed, who could approve it and what the customer agreed to where required.
- Person responsible for the case: Who remains answerable for the service and for decisions others cannot make.
If the current promise is missing or disputed, record the question and the person who must resolve it. Do not fill the gap with the outcome that would be easiest to complete.
This check concerns an agreed remedy. Deciding legal rights, warranty eligibility, safety questions or the merits of a serious dispute needs the appropriate authorized person or specialist.
Check each part of the remedy
Give each distinct obligation a row. A replacement delivery and the collection of a faulty item may belong to the same remedy, but one can happen while the other remains unfinished.
For each row, ask what the evidence actually establishes. A label can show that a shipment was prepared. A delivery record can support that something arrived. A technician’s report can describe the work performed and the checks made. A customer may still report a continuing problem.
| Agreed obligation | Evidence available | What that evidence establishes | What remains unknown or undone | Next action and owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Write one specific part of the current promise. | Identify the actual record or observation; write “not recorded” if missing. | Describe what you can reasonably conclude from it. | Keep any remaining work, uncertainty or dispute explicit. | Name the person responsible for the next action or decision. |
These are assessment prompts, not a universal list of documents to obtain. Select evidence appropriate to the promise and the people able to check it. A coordinator can obtain and retain the record; physical inspection or a technical judgment belongs with someone able and authorized to perform it.
O*NET’s customer-service duties include recording interactions, checking that changes resolved problems and referring unresolved grievances. Those are descriptions of human work. They help identify the responsibility to examine; they do not establish what a particular AI implementation can do.
Your current software may already hold much of this information. Use the case record to connect the relevant evidence and identify what is missing before deciding whether another tool or role is necessary.
Record an honest next disposition
Choose the description that fits the evidence. Different obligations in the same case can be in different positions. These descriptions are a way to think through a case, not a required status system to install.
The agreed obligation is supported by evidence. Record what was completed and the basis for that conclusion. Check whether any other part of the remedy remains outstanding before treating the whole case as complete.
There is still work to do. Keep the unfulfilled obligation visible. Assign its next action and owner. If the blockage sits with a supplier or technician, record what is awaited and who is responsible for following it through.
A decision is needed. A failed repair, unavailable replacement or changed customer request may alter what should happen next. Keep the relevant facts with the case and identify the authorized decision-maker. Do not silently replace the original promise with a new one.
The outcome remains unconfirmed. Missing evidence or an unanswered message leaves a limit on what you know. Your business may have an agreed follow-up and administrative-closure policy. If you close follow-up under that policy, record the reason separately from a claim that the remedy worked. Leave a clear route for handling a later report of the unresolved issue under that policy.
A configured ticket state is one piece of the record. Zendesk’s lifecycle documentation describes states and business rules for pending, solved and closed tickets. The question for your business is what its chosen state means and what evidence sits behind it.
Completing an agreed remedy does not guarantee customer satisfaction. A customer can dispute an outcome or ask for something more. Preserve that fact and put any further decision with the appropriate person.
Worked example: the replacement arrived, but the case is still open
The following case and records are fictional. They illustrate the assessment; they are not Taurist client results or instructions for handling every replacement.
Current promise: Deliver an agreed replacement appliance and collect the faulty one.
Change to the original promise: The original model was unavailable. The owner authorized an alternative at no extra cost, conditional on the customer accepting it. The customer then accepted the alternative. The coordinator retained both decisions with the case.
Person responsible for the case: The business’s service lead. The case coordinator carries permitted follow-through; a change to the remedy returns to the authorized person.
| Agreed obligation | Evidence available | What that evidence establishes | What remains unknown or undone | Next action and owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obtain agreement to the alternative before arranging it. | Owner’s authorization and the customer’s acceptance message. | The alternative was authorized and accepted under the stated terms. | No open question recorded about that change. | Coordinator retains both records with the revised promise. |
| Deliver the agreed replacement. | Delivery record and customer message confirming receipt. | The recorded replacement reached the customer. | Receipt alone does not establish that it works. | Coordinator checks for the agreed evidence of the result. |
| Check the replacement’s reported result. | Customer message saying the replacement works. | The customer reported a working replacement at that check. | This does not guarantee that no later fault will occur. | Coordinator records the message; any later reported issue is handled on its facts. |
| Collect the faulty appliance. | Collection was requested; no collection receipt is recorded. | A request was made. Collection is not established. | The collection obligation remains open. | Coordinator establishes collection progress with the collection provider and retains the resulting evidence. |
Case disposition: Work still outstanding. The replacement has supporting evidence, but the agreed collection remains open. The service lead should be able to see that remaining obligation without reconstructing the email thread.
What changes when the collection receipt arrives? Check that it relates to the correct case and item, retain it and update the collection row. If it supports collection and no other obligation remains open or disputed, the recorded evidence supports completion of this agreed remedy. Record that basis for closing the case.
If the replacement fails
Suppose the customer reports that the replacement has the same fault. Keep that report alongside the earlier confirmation. The newer report changes what the business needs to investigate; the earlier record should not be erased. The coordinator gathers the relevant information and obtains the appropriate technical assessment or remedy decision. Another replacement, charge or visit is not automatically authorized by the existing thread.
If the customer never confirms the result
Keep the delivery evidence and the attempts to obtain the agreed confirmation. Apply the business’s defined follow-up policy. If follow-up is closed because there was no response, record that reason and the unconfirmed result. Do not substitute “customer confirmed” for “customer did not reply.”
Copy the blank case-closeout record
Copy this structure into a document your team already uses. Add rows for distinct obligations rather than compressing the whole remedy into one status. Use “not recorded” for missing evidence and “decision needed” for a question that requires an authorized answer.
Case reference: ____________________
Current agreed remedy: ____________________
Agreement source and version: ____________________
Authorized changes and relevant customer agreement: ____________________
Person responsible for the case: ____________________
| Agreed obligation | Evidence available | What it establishes | Unknown or undone | Next action and owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ |
| ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ |
| ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ | ____________________ |
Case disposition and reason: ____________________
Remaining obligation or decision, if any: ____________________
Evidence supporting completion, or uncertainty retained at closure: ____________________
Who owns the next action or later unresolved report under your policy: ____________________
The finished record should let another authorized person understand the current promise, the evidence and the remaining responsibility. Keep it as concise as that requires; you do not need to reproduce every message.
Find the work that keeps returning to you
Look at the case you recorded. Where did you personally have to intervene? Separate the decision that genuinely needed you from the coordination you picked up around it.
You may have needed to authorize a different model. That does not necessarily mean you also needed to find its availability, obtain the customer’s answer, arrange collection and check the resulting records. Those are responsibilities to identify and assess.
The answer may be a clearer policy or a better use of your current software. A human coordinator may be appropriate when negotiation or technical judgment dominates. A Worker is a candidate only where the responsibility, permitted actions, actual system access and evaluation can be established.
For a prospective assignment, the AI Worker workflow brief can help describe the job’s boundaries. The readiness guide addresses what needs clarifying before an AI implementation. Neither replaces the evidence needed to close the case in front of you.
Bring one case to your AI Action Plan
Bring a customer case you closed—or kept chasing. We’ll examine what remained open, why it returned to you, which decisions must stay with your team and what someone else could carry through.
The assessment can compare process changes, existing software, human help and a managed Worker, including the effort and economics of each option. You can use this record with your team whether or not you choose AI.
Questions about using this record
What if we cannot find evidence for an obligation?
Record what is missing, what you can establish and who should obtain the information or decide the next step. Missing evidence does not by itself prove the action failed, but it limits what you can claim happened.
Can we close follow-up if the customer does not answer?
Use the policy appropriate to your business and service. If that policy permits administrative closure, record the attempts, the available evidence and the unconfirmed outcome. An unanswered message is not customer confirmation of a successful fix.
What if the customer asks for a different remedy?
Keep the original agreement and the new request visible. Identify who can authorize a change and what customer agreement is needed. This record does not determine legal entitlements or grant refund, replacement or pricing authority.
Do we need an AI Worker to use this?
No. The record is a way to examine a real responsibility. Clearer ownership, existing systems or human help may be enough. A Worker would need a defined role, appropriate permissions and testing for your actual work.
Evidence and scope: This resource adapts the linked occupational duties and software lifecycle documentation to a practical assessment, informed by NSW Ombudsman ownership guidance and PHSO investigation guidance. Those sources concern public-service complaints in Australia and the UK; their principles are used here as context, not US warranty obligations. It does not prescribe a legal complaints process or prove an AI outcome. The example is fictional.