Claim explorer / evidence thread
Claim 12547
GRE 8220 • Alix • Write Off • grand-design
risk 0.00
deadline Overdue / escalation ready
images 0
matched 0
review 6
Warranty deadline timeline
Track where the claim sits in the recovery workflow, how many days have elapsed, and whether the auto-approval window or payment deadline is already in play.
Uploaded
Completed stage
178d elapsed • 0d remaining
Analyzed
Completed stage
178d elapsed • 0d remaining
Awaiting OEM
Completed stage
178d elapsed • 0d remaining
Auto-Approved
Completed stage
178d elapsed • 0d remaining
Payment Due
Completed stage
178d elapsed • 0d remaining
Escalation Eligible
Overdue / escalation ready
178d elapsed • 0d remaining • Overdue
Resolved
Upcoming statutory deadline
178d elapsed • 0d remaining
AI Claim Analysis
Estimated Recovery Amount
Pending payment match
What this claim may still be worth based on current evidence.
Compliance Score
100/100
Higher is cleaner. Lower means more missing support, more friction, or more OEM pushback.
Violations Detected
2
OEM Response Deadline Exceeded • Payment Deadline Exceeded
Missing Items
6
No active evidence gaps are listed.
Deadline Status
Overdue / escalation ready
178 days open in the visible workflow.
Recommended Action
Escalate to State
This is the fastest next move from the current workflow stage.
Dossier completeness
Files 6 • RO lines 3 • human-described photos 5 • 3C yellow • reconciliation reconciled • linked side comments 1
Gaps: three c not quality ready • sidebar comment coherence not supported
US dispute readiness
Evidence packet check
Operational preflight for US warranty escalation: packet size, chronology, cross-references, witness checks, source grounding, and backup evidence.
Estimated pack size
6
Proxy count from docs, images, comments, and claim lines. Actual PDF pages still need final preflight.
Evidence packet lane
Compact packet candidate
Small enough for a compact escalation packet, assuming final PDFs stay clean.
Chronology
Ready to order
Visible span: May 7, 2026, 5:05 AM to Jun 25, 2026, 2:54 AM.
Indexed evidence
1 docs / 5 images
Use only the strongest evidence in the escalation packet; keep the rest as support material.
Cross-reference base
Available
Line items, comments, or gap flags can be tied back to supporting material.
Witness verification
Human verification required
Any statement or affidavit output must be checked by the witness before use.
AI / citation gate
Manual check required
Escalation material must keep facts, inferences, citations, and source documents separated.
Expert evidence pressure
Not signalled
No expert-evidence trigger is visible from the current image rollup.
Escalation posture
Escalation watch
178 days open in the visible workflow; risk score 0.00.
Claim Summary
Evidence summary
No evidence summary yet.
Path
/home/openclaw/nas/Dropbox/GRE 8220/Write Off/12547/6894e48fec9e3.jpg
Timeline
First seen May 7, 2026, 5:05 AM • last seen Jun 25, 2026, 2:54 AM
Evidence flags
No active evidence gap flags
Comment Intelligence
Thread depth
3 indexed side comments on this claim.
Latest visible thread signal
Oct 20, 2026, 7:39 PM • processor • TESTING AND LEARNING — Testing/Learning claim 12547. PA 887195 was submitted August 12, 2025, and the August 13 sidebar says it was denied because shattered glass was not considered a warranty issue. The RO reports the r
Role mix
Dealer 0 • OEM 0 • Processor 3
Decision cues
Denial signals 2 • info / missing-doc asks 1 • approval signals 0
Best move
Work missing-doc or reply asks first from the thread.
Quick Actions
Back to search results
Run the same search again.
Open focused evidence thread
Jump straight into Dropbox side comments, notes, and support documents.
Open claim explorer
Return to the main recovery queue view.
Open evidence room
See the quick-rule cards first, then open the legal basis only if needed.
Images
supporting-image
Bag contains shattered dark glass or plastic fragments on pavement.
Human interpretation • confidence 0.74
supporting-image
Glass cooktop cover with a small visible scratch/scuff near the warning label.
Human interpretation • confidence 0.88
supporting-image
Furrion three-burner RV cooktop with visibly damaged glass-cover latch points.
Human interpretation • confidence 0.82
supporting-image
Close-up of a black Furrion gas cooktop with covered burners; no clear damage visible.
Human interpretation • confidence 0.93
supporting-image
Lippert appliance identification label and connected hose visible; no damage evident.
Human interpretation • confidence 0.98
Claim Lines
complaint
CUSTOMER STATES THAT THEY WENT TO OPEN W 1020 GRAND THE LID FOR THE STOVE TOP AND THE REAR SECTION OF THE GLASS COVER SHATTERED
needs-review • confidence 0.18
complaint
CUSTOMER STATES THAT THEY WENT TO OPEN W 1020 GRAND THE LID FOR THE STOVE TOP AND THE REAR SECTION OF THE GLASS COVER SHATTERED
needs-review • confidence 0.18
cause
CONFIRMED CUSTOMERS CONCERN- THE GLASS SHATTERED RIGHT AT THE HINGE- WILL NEED TO REPLACE THE GLASS STOVE COVER
needs-review • confidence 0.26
cause
CONFIRMED CUSTOMERS CONCERN- THE GLASS SHATTERED RIGHT AT THE HINGE- WILL NEED TO REPLACE THE GLASS STOVE COVER
needs-review • confidence 0.18
correction
R&R GLASS STOVE COVER REQUEST .50 HOURS OF
needs-review • confidence 0.18
correction
R&R GLASS STOVE COVER REQUEST .50 HOURS OF
needs-review • confidence 0.18
Evidence Thread
Alix Mongiat
processor • Aug 12, 2025, 9:55 AM
PA 887195 has been submitted for approval.
Alix Mongiat
processor • Aug 13, 2025, 10:32 AM
@Kaitlyn R This was denied as shattered glass is not a warranty issue.
iClaims AI
processor • Oct 20, 2026, 7:39 PM
TESTING AND LEARNING — Testing/Learning claim 12547. PA 887195 was submitted August 12, 2025, and the August 13 sidebar says it was denied because shattered glass was not considered a warranty issue. The RO reports the rear stove glass shattering at the hinge when opened and requests .5 hour. It totals $0 and does not establish a completed replacement or a dollar write-off.
The five photos document the stove, remaining glass/hinge, bagged fragments and Furrion identification. They support that breakage occurred, but do not establish whether a defective hinge, binding, installation stress, impact or another cause produced it. What could have strengthened the request: preserve the failed parts and document the specific mechanical or manufacturing defect, its connection to the fracture, and the requested remedy before seeking manufacturer/vendor review. A repeat submission saying only 'shattered glass' would not answer the stated refusal. No covered defect or reimbursement is established by the present evidence. @Chris B @Heidi H @Tricia H
Claim Files
12547.pdf
main-pdf • Aug 12, 2025, 9:32 AM • 70,556 bytes
/home/openclaw/nas/Dropbox/GRE 8220/Write Off/12547/12547.pdf