1.0 Document Control
Owner: [Name | Seat]
Dept: 4.0 - CX & Account Health
Last Updated: 2026-04-29
Last Verified: 2026-04-29
2.0 Operational Context
Purpose: Guide CX Reps through reviewing any customer claim — refund, replacement, compensation, damage, or repair — for red flags that warrant extra scrutiny, additional documentation, or escalation to the CX Manager before committing to a remedy.
When to use: Every time a customer asks CAR GUYS for something beyond a simple product question. This includes: Refund requests (product didn't perform, never received, claimed empty, etc.); Replacement requests (damaged on arrival, malfunctioning sprayer, missing components); Compensation requests (hassle, time, collateral impact); Damage claims (product caused damage to vehicle, property, or another surface); Repair requests (CAR GUYS covers professional repair costs).
Core Principle: Most CAR GUYS customers are acting in good faith. The Zero Risk Policy means legitimate dissatisfaction gets resolved fast with no interrogation. This protocol is not about defaulting to suspicion — it's about pattern recognition so the rep knows when to pause, ask for clarification, or escalate before committing to a remedy that doesn't hold up under basic review. Apply this protocol silently. The customer should never feel accused during review. If additional information is needed, ask for it naturally as part of standard handling.
3.0 Three-Bucket Red Flag Framework
Red flags fall into three buckets. Any one flag doesn't automatically mean the claim is illegitimate — but two or more across buckets warrants extra scrutiny before committing to a remedy.
3.1 Story Inconsistencies
The customer's narrative contradicts itself, contradicts the product, or contradicts how CAR GUYS operates. Examples across claim types:
Customer claims they followed directions exactly but describes an application method the product data sheet explicitly warns against (e.g., "I applied Tire Shine to the tread for extra coverage, and then I slipped").
Customer claims the product "never worked at all" but is asking for a refund on a bottle purchased years ago — if it never worked, why the delay?
Customer claims the bottle arrived empty but later references having used the product.
Timeline doesn't add up — claims the damage/issue has been there "for weeks" but only reached out today, or claims they "just used the product" but the order is 2+ years old.
Two different versions of what happened across the conversation (first message says one thing, follow-up says something contradictory).
Customer claims a specific product behavior that doesn't match the formula (e.g., "your Wheel Cleaner fizzed and damaged my rims" — Wheel Cleaner is not acid-based).
Customer claims a product defect or damage on a surface the product is explicitly warned against in the data sheet, then claims they didn't know or didn't read directions — inconsistent with their claimed level of detailing experience elsewhere in the conversation.
Customer's description of the product (color, consistency, smell, packaging) doesn't match what CAR GUYS actually ships.
3.2 Documentation Gaps
What the customer sends is missing, mismatched, or doesn't support the claim. Examples across claim types:
Claim is about product never arriving but Amazon shows delivered and the customer can't explain the discrepancy.
Claim is about damage or defect but photos are blurry, cropped, or only show the problem without any identifying context (no ability to verify it's actually the customer's situation).
Photos show condition inconsistent with the claim — weathering, age, or accumulated dirt indicating the issue is older than the customer says.
Batch ID photo doesn't match any CAR GUYS production run, is illegible, or appears altered.
Product consistency photo shows a substance that doesn't look like CAR GUYS product (wrong color, wrong viscosity, wrong packaging).
Amazon Order ID doesn't match CAR GUYS records, or the order was not Sold by CAR GUYS (third-party reseller — product may not be ours, may have been mishandled in unauthorized supply chain, not our liability).
Customer claims "lots of photos" exist but sends only one, or claims before-photos exist but can't produce them despite being asked.
Customer refuses or resists providing standard documentation ("why do you need the batch ID? just refund me already").
3.3 Pattern Flags
Contextual signals that correlate with gaming or bad-faith claims in CAR GUYS' experience. Examples across claim types:
Order is significantly old (6+ months, sometimes years) but the issue is "just noticed" or "just happened".
Purchase was from an unauthorized reseller (eBay, Amazon.ca, third-party Amazon marketplace seller) rather than Sold by CAR GUYS — product may not be ours.
Customer has a history of prior claims on other orders (check email address, shipping address, and customer name against prior tickets).
Customer has opened multiple claims or refund requests across different product purchases over time.
Claim amount is disproportionate to the issue described (e.g., demanding $5,000 for what photos show as a small spot, or demanding multiple bottles of compensation for a one-time issue).
Customer leads with demands rather than a description of what happened ("I need you to send me 3 free bottles" / "I need you to pay for a new paint job") — legitimate customers typically describe the problem first and leave the remedy to us.
Customer escalates aggressively within the first message — threatens negative reviews, chargebacks, or legal action before any resolution has been attempted. Sometimes this is legitimate anger, but often a pressure tactic.
Customer refuses standard resolution paths in favor of cash demands (e.g., refuses a replacement bottle and demands cash instead for a "defective" bottle they're keeping, refuses a professional detailer in favor of cash compensation).
Customer's behavior escalates dramatically when basic documentation is requested ("why do I have to prove anything?") — legitimate customers are almost always willing to send a photo or an order ID.
Multiple claims from what appears to be the same customer under slightly different names, emails, or shipping addresses.
4.0 How to Respond When Red Flags Are Present
The threshold: One red flag alone is rarely conclusive — plenty of legitimate claims have an odd detail. Two or more flags across buckets is the trigger for extra scrutiny. What to do when the threshold is hit depends on the claim type and tier:
4.1 Low-stakes claims (standard refund, bottle replacement, small compensation)
Rep authority, no CX Manager escalation needed.
Ask for reasonable additional documentation (photo, order ID, description of what happened) before committing to the remedy.
If the documentation comes back and resolves the inconsistency, proceed.
If the documentation doesn't come back or doesn't resolve the inconsistency, the rep can decline the claim politely, referencing the missing or inconsistent documentation rather than accusing the customer.
Flag the interaction internally (note on the ticket, Trello card if warranted) so the pattern is captured if the customer reappears.
4.2 Mid-stakes claims (Tier 2 cash compensation beyond Amazon cap, replacement of multiple items)
Escalate to the CX Manager before sending the Stage 2 remedy template.
Compile the flagged concerns into a short note for the CX Manager.
Include: which bucket(s) the flags fall into, the specific inconsistency, the customer's claim, the proposed remedy.
Pause the remedy response until the CX Manager approves a path forward.
4.3 High-stakes claims (Tier 3 professional repair, Tier 4 replacement)
Escalate to the CX Manager, regardless of whether red flags are present. Tier 3–4 commitments always warrant CX Manager review; red flags raise the bar further.
If red flags are present, flag them explicitly in the escalation note.
The CX Manager may request additional documentation, propose a lower-tier remedy, decline the claim, or route to insurance/legal consultation for large-dollar claims with serious inconsistencies.
4.4 CX Manager decision options (for any escalated claim)
Proceed with standard remedy (red flags were benign in context).
Proceed with a lower-tier remedy than the claim would normally warrant.
Ask the customer for additional documentation to clarify the inconsistency.
Decline the claim politely if the evidence is clearly inconsistent with a real issue.
Route to legal or insurance consultation for high-dollar claims with serious inconsistencies.
5.0 How to Ask for More Information Without Signaling Suspicion
The customer should never feel accused during review. Standard framing when red flags trigger additional documentation requests:
For order verification: "Just to get this sorted on my end, could you confirm the Amazon Order ID? A screenshot of the order details page works fine."
For photo documentation: "A couple of photos would help me understand what's going on and figure out the best fix."
For batch ID on defect claims: "If you can send a quick photo of the batch ID on the bottle, that lets me check whether it's from a batch we've had any reports on."
For story clarification: Ask open-ended questions about what happened rather than pointed questions about the inconsistency. "Can you walk me through when you first noticed it?" reads very differently than "But you said earlier that..."
Never write: "Your story doesn't add up." "This seems inconsistent with..." "I'm having trouble believing..." Even when suspicions are warranted, confrontational framing kills legitimate claims along with fake ones, generates negative reviews, and burns goodwill.
6.0 What This Protocol is NOT
Not a reason to default to suspicion. The vast majority of CAR GUYS customers are acting in good faith. Approach every claim assuming good faith until the documentation says otherwise.
Not a reason to deny legitimate claims. A customer with one red flag can still have a real issue. The threshold is two or more across buckets, not one.
Not a workaround for the Zero Risk Policy. Zero Risk means we stand behind our products. If a claim is legitimate, we resolve it — even if a single red flag is present. This protocol only slows the rep down when the evidence genuinely doesn't hold up.
Not a substitute for the CX Manager's judgment. This protocol surfaces concerns; the CX Manager decides how to weigh them on escalated claims.
Not something the customer sees. This is an internal review tool. Customer-facing replies always use the appropriate voice register from CX Standards §6.3 — the red-flag review happens silently in the background.