Freight Insight | AgentWorks Group Demo

Operational case activity

Sample snapshot 30 days through May 9, 2026

Open Investigations48↑ 12% this month

Claims Approved27↑ 25% this month

Total Recoveries$184,300Year to date

Flagged Packages

Packages needing attention today

UPS1Z84W33E0392504176

Delivery ExceptionDamaged Package · Acme Retail Co. · $2,450.00

DHLJD01460000876543210

Package Not LocatedLost Package · BuildCo Materials · $3,720.00

FedEx773003390811

Concealed DamageReported after delivery · Westfield Supply · $1,180.00

Investigations by Status

30-day snapshot

48Total

Evidence Collection 18
Under Review 9
Awaiting Information 16
Approved 3
Other 2

Top Damage Types

May 2026

Crush / Compression 14 Puncture 11 Impact 9 Water Damage 6 Load Shift 5

Recent Investigations

One complete sample case · two portfolio previews

ID	Shipment	Carrier	Customer	Issue	Status	Updated
INV-2026-1042	SHP-2026-1029	DHL	Halstead Logistics	Lost Package	Awaiting Info	May 9, 2026
INV-2026-1058	SHP-2026-1058	UPS	Acme Retail Co.	Damaged Package	Delivery Exception	May 8, 2026
INV-2026-1049	SHP-2026-1033	FedEx	Northgate Foods	Concealed Damage	Under Review	May 7, 2026

Recent Activity

Portfolio sample

May 9, 9:30 AMDHL JD01460000876543210 — tracer opened, package not located.

May 8, 11:30 AMUPS 1Z84W33E0392504176 — shipment held pending inspection.

May 8, 9:15 AMSHP-2026-1058 — damaged package identified during receiving.

May 7, 2:40 PMSHP-2026-1033 — concealed damage claim drafted for FedEx shipment.

May 7, 10:05 AMINV-2026-1041 — recovery approved, $3,120 collected.

Only packages classified as lost or damaged are shown. Select a tracking number to review carrier activity and begin a claim.

Packages requiring action

3 packages

Select a tracking number above to review the package exception.

Claims already created remain separate from packages that still need review.

Active carrier claims

Showing 3 of 16 active claims

Claim	Carrier / Tracking	Customer	Type	Amount	Status	Last Update
CLM-2026-1049	UPS1Z98E12A0392456001	Northgate Foods	Damaged Package	$1,875.00	Carrier Investigation	May 9, 2026
CLM-2026-1048	FedEx772918440630	Halstead Logistics	Lost Package	$3,220.00	Information Required	May 8, 2026
CLM-2026-1047	DHLJD01460000688211990	Westfield Supply	Damaged Package	$1,140.00	Approved	May 7, 2026

Completed carrier claims and their submitted packages.

Completed carrier claims

Showing 4 recent claims

Claim	Carrier / Tracking	Customer	Amount	Resolution	Completed
CLM-2026-1039	UPS1Z45A72E0392441830	McCormick Foods	$2,680.00	Accepted	May 6, 2026
CLM-2026-1035	FedEx772901884420	Northgate Foods	$1,420.00	Denied	May 4, 2026
CLM-2026-1031	DHLJD01460000624411882	Westfield Supply	$3,105.00	Accepted	May 2, 2026
CLM-2026-1028	UPS1Z98E12A0392417712	Halstead Logistics	$940.00	Denied	April 30, 2026

Prefilled from tracking and issue identification; nothing to re-enter.

Shipment & Issue

Claim Details

Claim amount (USD)

Customer

Sender (shipper)

Receiver

Contact name

Contact email

Claim description

Comments

Evidence

Add supporting images or PDF documents to this claim.

Active investigation

INV-2026-1058 Delivery Exception

Claim CLM-2026-1058 · Shipment SHP-2026-1058 · Acme Retail Co.

Carrier / TrackingUPS1Z84W33E0392504176

Claim Amount$2,450.002 of 10 packages affected

Evidence Completeness69%9 of 13 recommended items

Missing Evidence40 marked requested

Shipment Information

Carrier: UPS
Service: Ground Freight
Tracking: 1Z84W33E0392504176
Origin: Atlanta, GA
Destination: Dallas, TX
Ship Date: May 1, 2026
Delivery: May 8, 2026
Freight Terms: FOB Origin

Damage Summary

Damage Type: Forklift Puncture
Discovered: May 8, 9:15 AM
Location: Receiver Warehouse
Visible at Delivery: Yes
Packages Affected: 2 of 10
Estimated Loss: $2,450.00

Two outer cartons show punctures consistent with forklift tine damage. One product unit inside each carton is damaged.

Preliminary AI Assessment

Probable CauseForklift PunctureLikely OccurrenceDuring Unloading / ReceivingMost Likely Responsible PartyReceiver Warehouse

72%

Illustrative decision support — not a legal determination.

Investigation Timeline

May 1, 7:42 AMShipment picked up in Atlanta. No damage noted on pickup record.

May 8, 8:55 AMShipment delivered to receiver dock; exception noted on POD.

May 8, 9:15 AMTwo punctured cartons discovered during unloading.

May 8, 9:23 AMReceiver uploaded six photographs and signed POD.

May 8, 11:14 AMReceiving inspection report filed with estimated loss.

Evidence workspace

Source material and observations

9 items · 6 photos · 3 documents

Decision support

Evidence-to-decision synthesis

Pre-authored sample output based on 9 evidence items and 27 observations

Illustrative confidence72%

Human review remains required.Sample data and illustrative confidence scores demonstrate workflow behavior. Results are not calibrated production determinations and do not constitute legal advice or a final liability decision. Show scores as ranges

Probable Cause — Ranked

1

Forklift Puncture

Puncture geometry, tine-width match, and damage location support handling equipment impact.

Supported by

72%

2

Unknown Handling Impact

Possible, but the pattern is more consistent with a forklift tine.

Supported by· Contradicted by

17%

3

Internal Product Movement

Unlikely. Torn fibers radiate inward and the wrap is penetrated from outside.

Contradicted by

7%

4

Packaging Failure

Unlikely. Packaging appears adequate and was reported otherwise intact.

Contradicted by

4%

Evidence Impact

Strongly Supports

Neutral

Does Not Support

No collected evidence contradicts the leading cause. See alternative explanations below for scenarios the evidence weighs against.

Timeline Reconstruction

May 8, 8:55 AMShipment arrives at receiver dock; POD exception noted (EV-007).

8:55 – 9:15 AMMost likely damage window: during unloading at the receiver dock.

May 8, 9:15 AMPunctured cartons discovered during receiving (EV-009).

May 8, 9:18 – 9:38 AMPhotographic evidence captured (EV-001 through EV-006).

Damage was first documented during unloading or receiving. Destination pre-unloading photographs are unavailable, so an earlier occurrence in UPS custody cannot be fully excluded.

Alternative Explanations

A

Damage occurred in UPS custody before arrival

Cannot be fully excluded — no photographs exist from before unloading began. The POD exception (EV-007) is consistent with either timing.

B

Pre-existing damage at origin

Weighed against by the clean pickup record and intact invoice packaging references (EV-008).

C

Product defect rather than transit damage

Weighed against by the aligned external-to-internal damage path (EV-005).

Responsibility Assessment

Receiver Warehouse68%

Damage was first documented during receiver-controlled unloading (EV-007, EV-009); puncture height and access angle are consistent with receiving-dock forklift handling (EV-001, EV-002, EV-003).

UPS22%

UPS custody cannot be fully excluded because no destination photographs exist before unloading began.

Shipper10%

Packaging appears adequate (EV-004, EV-009) and the puncture is external, reducing likelihood of shipper responsibility.

Damage was first documented during unloading or receiving. Puncture geometry is consistent with forklift handling. Destination pre-unloading photographs are unavailable, so UPS responsibility cannot be fully excluded. Packaging appears adequate. This result is not a legal determination.

Missing Evidence

1

Trailer interior photo before unloading

Would help establish whether damage existed before receiver handling.

Priority: High · Impact: could shift responsibility toward UPS

2

Origin loading photographs

Would confirm carton and pallet condition at carrier pickup.

Priority: High · Impact: tests the clean-pickup assumption

3

Forklift operator statement

Would corroborate the receiving-dock handling sequence during the damage window.

Priority: Medium · Impact: confirms or rules out dock handling

4

Destination dock video, if available

Would establish handling during the unloading window.

Priority: Medium · Impact: highest-certainty evidence if footage exists

Current conclusion should be treated as preliminary until the highest-value missing evidence is addressed.

Analyst decision

Analyst review and approval

Human approval required before finalization

PROPOSED RESPONSIBILITY

Receiver Warehouse — Primary Responsibility

Available evidence most strongly indicates forklift handling damage during unloading or receiving. Confidence is moderate because pre-unloading destination photographs are unavailable.

68% responsibility confidenceHuman review required

Supporting Findings

EV-001 and EV-002 show an inward carton puncture consistent with forklift tine geometry. EV-003 supports an entry angle consistent with pallet-level handling. EV-004 shows the stretch wrap was penetrated at the same location. EV-005 confirms product damage aligned with the carton penetration. EV-007 records damage at delivery. EV-009 records discovery during receiving.

Qualification & Uncertainty

No photographic evidence establishes condition immediately before receiver unloading. UPS responsibility cannot be fully excluded. This is an operational responsibility assessment, not a final legal determination.

Recommended action

Preserve recovery options while closing the evidence gap

Submit a responsibility inquiry to the receiver warehouse with the evidence package, while preserving the option to pursue UPS if additional evidence indicates pre-delivery damage.

Claim outputs

Claim Reports

Open reports from an existing claim.

01

Investigation Summary

Complete summary of shipment facts, timeline, evidence, findings, and conclusions.

Not generated this session

02

Responsibility Assessment

Detailed responsibility analysis with evidence, confidence, and rationale.

Not generated this session

03

Evidence Package

Selected photographs and documents with annotations and source details.

Not generated this session

04

Missing Evidence Request

Targeted request listing the additional information needed to strengthen the conclusion.

Not generated this session

05

Carrier Claim Package

Complete carrier claim submission with tracking, claim details, timeline, evidence, and approved findings.

Not generated this session

Responsibility assessment · sample output

Investigation INV-2026-1058

Prepared for Acme Retail Co. · Sample date: May 8, 2026

Executive Conclusion

The evidence most strongly supports forklift damage during unloading or receiving. Receiver Warehouse is assessed as the most likely responsible party with 68% confidence.

68%Responsibility Confidence

This browser session

Generated outputs

History stays in this tab. Regeneration uses the current review state.

No outputs generated yet. Use a Generate button above to create one.

Audit trail

Case activity history

Case and intake actions recorded in this browser session

Flagged Packages

Investigations by Status

Top Damage Types

Recent Investigations

Recent Activity

Packages requiring action

Selected Package

Carrier Activity

Detection and Claim Readiness

Active carrier claims

Completed carrier claims

Shipment & Issue

Claim Details

Evidence

INV-2026-1058 Delivery Exception

Shipment Information

Damage Summary

Preliminary AI Assessment

Investigation Timeline

Source material and observations

Evidence-to-decision synthesis

Probable Cause — Ranked

Evidence Impact

Strongly Supports

Neutral

Does Not Support

Timeline Reconstruction

Alternative Explanations

Responsibility Assessment

Missing Evidence

Analyst review and approval

Receiver Warehouse — Primary Responsibility

Supporting Findings

Qualification & Uncertainty

Preserve recovery options while closing the evidence gap

Claim Reports

Investigation Summary

Responsibility Assessment

Evidence Package

Missing Evidence Request

Carrier Claim Package

Investigation INV-2026-1058

Executive Conclusion

Generated outputs

Case activity history