The guide
A weak report and a good one
The same fictional repair, written up twice.
A resident in Tower 2, Apartment 1204 reports water dripping from the living-room AC. A technician visits the next day. The resident is asked whether it is fixed and never answers. Four days later the coordinator closes the job.
Weak
Q-1204 · AC leak
Status: Completed
"Done. AC fixed." · 11 Oct
Good
Q-1204 · AC dripping water · Closed
- Reported: "Water is dripping from the AC in the living room." Resident, 10 Oct.
- Contractor says: cleared the blocked condensate drain; ran the unit 15 minutes, no leak while watching. Resolved. Ravi Kumar, Bluepoint Cooling, 11 Oct.
- Checks: technician's 15-minute test run. Coordinator reviewed the photo and test note; did not inspect the unit.
- Resident: asked 11 Oct by WhatsApp. No reply.
- Closed: Lina Haddad, 15 Oct. Work reported done, no reply from the resident.
What the weak report hides
- Who says it is fixed. "Done" could be the technician, the coordinator, or a status set automatically.
- What was done. If the leak comes back, the next technician starts from zero.
- What was checked, and what was not. A 15-minute test is useful, but it is not a day's use, and nobody looked at the unit afterwards.
- That the resident never confirmed. "Completed" reads as if they had.
What the good report does not claim
It does not say the AC is safe, or that the repair is of good quality, or that the resident is satisfied. It says what each person stated and checked, and where the knowledge stops. That is why it holds up when the resident writes three days later that it is dripping again: see the reopened example.
The good report took a few more lines. Most of them already existed: in the technician's message, the photo, and the WhatsApp thread. The record simply keeps them together, each with its source.