Why was the warranty claim rejected? — second capture
COMPLETEEvidence and authorityEKA-CUR-003
A source record and a document passage answering one question without merging.
The question
“Why was WCL-2026-000002 rejected, and what does the warranty policy say?”
A second capture of chapter 07's question — the same subject, recorded again as a GOLDEN case of the curated suite.
A replay of the captured run through the EKA Workspace. No model is called in replay. The run is CUR-003 of the curated suite, graded GOLDEN.
What it looks like
Recorded walkthrough
Transcript
- The question is typed and sent:
Why was WCL-2026-000002 rejected, and what does the warranty policy say?
- The activity rail runs, then the answer arrives with its result: COMPLETE.
- The answer reads:
Warranty claim WCL-2026-000002 was rejected due to impact damage, which the extended policy excludes. The recorded decision reason states that impact damage is excluded under the extended policy WP-EXT-36. The warranty policy document states that impact damage is excluded from coverage under this policy, and that eligible manufacturing defects may be considered during the 36-month policy period when supported by claim evidence.
- The steps are opened: Reading the warranty decision · COMPLETED · Searching documents · COMPLETED · Writing the answer · COMPLETED.
- The evidence is opened: 7 items.
- The view returns to the answer.
Screenshots
Four moments of the run, one tab each.
