Why was the warranty claim rejected?

The user is asking two things about warranty claim WCL-2026-000002: why it was rejected, and what its warranty policy says. To answer why it was rejected, we need the warranty decision and reason using get_warranty_decision. To answer what the policy says, we must first retrieve the governing documents from the warranty decision tool and then search those documents using search_documents.

Step 1
get_warranty_decision(WCL-2026-000002)
→ claim state
→ customer claim_reason
→ Support decision + decision_reason
→ policy key
→ governing document key

Step 2
search_documents(
  query = "warranty policy terms conditions rejection coverage",
  document = governing document from Step 1
)
→ retrieve what the actual governing policy says

Step 2 names its document by reference to Step 1 ($s1.governing_documents.0) and declares that dependency, so the runtime accepted the plan on its first round. The policy text is read from the one document the Documents system records as governing the claim's policy, never from a guess at its title.

• Warranty claim WCL-2026-000002 has a status and decision of REJECTED.

  ESTABLISHEDEVD-FACT-46ad7869, EVD-FACT-169ded77

• The recorded decision reason for the rejection is impact damage, which the extended policy excludes.

  ESTABLISHEDEVD-FACT-f41fc62a

• The claim is under warranty policy WP-EXT-36, which has a 36-month policy period and excludes impact damage from coverage.

  ESTABLISHEDEVD-FACT-3d3ebd31, EVD-DOC-c0fd0755

• The claim was rejected because the recorded decision reason of impact damage falls under the policy exclusion.

  ESTABLISHEDEVD-FACT-f41fc62a, EVD-DOC-c0fd0755

customer claim reason ≠ recorded decision reason ≠ policy text

A simple retrieval assistant could search a policy and generate a plausible explanation.

EKA must preserve what the customer said, what Support decided, why Support recorded that decision, and what the policy says — and attach each statement to its own authority.

The EKA Workspace replaying this chapter's own captured run. No model is called in replay: what is on screen is the run described above, as the runtime returned it.

Transcript

1. The question is typed and sent: Why was WCL-2026-000002 rejected, and what does the warranty policy say?
2. The activity rail runs, then the answer arrives with its result: COMPLETE.
3. The answer reads: Warranty claim WCL-2026-000002 was rejected because Support recorded the decision reason as impact damage, which the extended policy excludes. The warranty policy WP-EXT-36 states that eligible manufacturing defects may be considered during the 36-month policy period, but impact damage is explicitly excluded from coverage.
4. The steps are opened: Reading the warranty decision · Searching documents · Writing the answer.
5. The evidence is opened: 7 items.
6. The view returns to the answer.