The Work Bench · Customer Service Representatives

Investigate the validity of complaints

The task, from O*NET: Obtain and examine all relevant information to assess validity of complaints and to determine possible causes, such as extreme weather conditions that could increase utility bills.

Typical length 25 minutes. Time split: documents 60%, systems 40%. About 352,489,560 hours a year of desk work across the US go to this task.

Passes, one attempt by Claude Fable 5.1. The rubric was written 2026-10-01 02:55 UTC, before the attempt (2026-10-01 03:06 UTC); the grade came last (2026-10-01 03:09 UTC).

One attempt at one task on one date, with constructed material: it is not a statement that the job, or this task in a given workplace, can be done by AI. The rubric, the attempt and the grade were made by the same model in one session, in that order; a person's check of a sample of grades will be published beside them.

The brief

You work in the customer care team at Northwind Water & Power, an electric utility. A customer, A. Rivera (account 7731-204), has written to dispute the August bill: it is more than double July's, and the customer says the meter must be wrong and asks for the charge to be reversed. Using the account history, the meter reads, the rate sheet, the weather summary and the service notes below, decide whether the complaint is valid as a billing or meter error, explain the probable causes of the higher bill, and draft the reply to the customer. Your supervisor wants your conclusion and reasoning first, then the reply, before the end of the shift.

The material

Constructed for this example; the names, figures and documents are invented.

ACCOUNT HISTORY (residential, single meter)
May: 612 kWh, billed $108.47
June: 790 kWh, billed $136.24
July: 1,045 kWh, billed $177.66
August: 2,210 kWh, billed $401.80

METER READS (AMI meter, model installed 2023, last accuracy test May 2025, within tolerance)
July 1: 48,210 (actual read)
August 1: 49,255 (actual read)
September 1: 51,465 (actual read)
September 3: 51,598 (manual verification read by field technician after the customer's call)

RATE SHEET (residential schedule R-1, in effect all summer)
Fixed service charge: $12.50 a month
Energy, first 1,000 kWh in a billing month: $0.150 per kWh
Energy, above 1,000 kWh: $0.185 per kWh
Taxes and fees: 4% of the subtotal

WEATHER SUMMARY, service area
July: average daily high 84 F; 4 days at or above 95 F
August: average daily high 94 F; 18 days at or above 95 F

SERVICE NOTES
August 9: customer called to say the home's air conditioner had been running constantly for about a week and the house would not cool below 78 F. Advised to have the unit serviced.
August 12: customer called back; a private HVAC company replaced a failed capacitor in the outdoor unit. No utility work order.
No meter work orders on this account in 2026. No outage or voltage events recorded on this circuit in August.
Customer's letter, September 8: disputes the August amount, requests reversal, says the meter must be faulty because 'nothing changed in the house'.

COMPANY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO OFFER (from the care team's reference sheet)
Meter accuracy test on request (no charge if the meter is found outside tolerance; $35 if within tolerance, waivable once per account).
Budget billing (levelized monthly amounts).
Free home energy use review by phone.
Payment arrangement over up to three months for a disputed-then-upheld bill.

The rubric, written before the attempt

1. States a clear conclusion on the complaint: the August charge is likely correct and not a meter or billing error, with the reasons. Evidence: An explicit conclusion sentence, before the reply, that says the complaint is not valid as a billing or meter error and gives at least two reasons from the material.
2. Recomputes the August charge from the reads and the rate sheet and says whether it matches the billed amount. Evidence: The arithmetic shown: 2,210 kWh from the reads; 1,000 at $0.150 and 1,210 at $0.185 plus $12.50, plus 4%, giving $401.80 within $0.10, and a statement that it matches.
3. Names the probable causes of the higher usage: the August heat, the air conditioner running constantly until the August 12 repair, and the higher rate on usage above 1,000 kWh. Evidence: All three named, with the weather figures or the service notes cited.
4. Uses the September 3 verification read to show the meter is recording consistently rather than ignoring it. Evidence: The September 1 to September 3 difference (133 kWh over two days, about 66 kWh a day) or an equivalent statement that the meter continued to record at the August rate.
5. The reply to the customer is in plain words, acknowledges the concern, explains the findings without blame, and offers at least one concrete next step from the options available. Evidence: All four present in the reply: acknowledgement, explanation, no blame, and an offer such as the meter test, budget billing, the energy use review or a payment arrangement.
6. Invents nothing beyond the material: no policies, fees, credits or facts that are not provided. Evidence: Every fact, figure and offer in the answer traces to the material; unknowns are stated as unknown.

The attempt, one pass, unedited

Claude Fable 5.1, written 2026-10-01 03:06 UTC from the brief and the material only.

CONCLUSION FOR THE SUPERVISOR

The August charge of $401.80 on account 7731-204 is correct as billed, and the record does not support a meter or billing error.

1. The reads reconcile. Both are actual AMI reads: 49,255 on August 1 and 51,465 on September 1, which is 2,210 kWh for August, the quantity billed.
2. The bill recomputes exactly from the R-1 rate sheet: 1,000 kWh at $0.150 = $150.00; 1,210 kWh at $0.185 = $223.85; plus the $12.50 service charge = $386.35; plus 4% taxes and fees ($15.45) = $401.80.
3. The meter is recording consistently. The technician's verification read on September 3 was 51,598, which is 133 kWh in the two days after September 1, about 66 kWh a day, in line with August's average of about 71 kWh a day. The meter was tested in May 2025 and found within tolerance, there are no meter work orders on the account in 2026, and no outage or voltage events were recorded on the circuit in August.
4. The usage has an explanation in the record. August's average high was 94 F with 18 days at or above 95 F, against 84 F and 4 such days in July. On August 9 the customer reported the air conditioner had been running constantly for about a week without cooling the house below 78 F; a failed capacitor in the outdoor unit was replaced on August 12. A unit running nonstop for about ten days of extreme heat is consistent with a month's usage roughly doubling, even though 'nothing changed in the house' from the customer's point of view.
5. The rate structure magnified the cost. Everything above 1,000 kWh in the month was billed at $0.185 rather than $0.150, so the second half of August's usage cost more per kWh than the first.

The complaint is therefore not valid as a billing or meter error, and the charge stands. What we can offer from the reference sheet: a meter accuracy test on request (no charge if the meter is outside tolerance, $35 if within, which I would waive once as the sheet allows), budget billing, the free energy use review by phone, and a payment arrangement over up to three months.

REPLY TO THE CUSTOMER

Dear A. Rivera,

Thank you for your letter of September 8 about your August bill. I understand that a jump from $177.66 to $401.80 is a shock, and I have gone through your account carefully.

Here is what I found. Your meter was read, not estimated, on August 1 (49,255) and September 1 (51,465). The difference is 2,210 kilowatt-hours for August, about double July's 1,045. I rebuilt the bill from those reads and our published rates, and it comes to exactly $401.80. The meter was tested in May 2025 and was accurate, and the extra read our technician took on September 3 shows it has kept recording at the same steady pace since the bill.

Two things in August explain the higher usage. It was a very hot month: the average high was 94 degrees, with 18 days at or above 95, compared with four such days in July. And your air conditioner was running constantly without cooling the house for about a week before the capacitor was replaced on August 12; a unit that runs nonstop uses far more power than one that cycles on and off. On top of that, our rates step up above 1,000 kilowatt-hours in a month, so the second half of your August usage was billed at the higher rate.

For those reasons I am not able to reverse the charge, but I can help in a few ways. If you would like the meter tested, I can arrange it; there is normally a $35 charge if the meter proves accurate, and I will waive that charge for you this once. You can move to budget billing so your payments are level through the year. Our free energy use review by phone can look at where the power is going in your home. And if it helps, we can spread the August balance over up to three months.

Please reply or call me and I will set up whichever of these you choose.

Sincerely,
Customer Care, Northwind Water & Power

The grade

Graded 2026-10-01 03:09 UTC against the rubric above, by the same model.

Overall: passes. A complete investigation in one pass: the reconciliation, the recomputation, the consistency check from the verification read, the causes, and a usable customer reply. Nothing invented. The one judgment call is the 'about ten days' inference, which is reasonable and is phrased as consistent with, not as established. The attempt did not quantify how much of the increase the tier-2 rate accounts for in dollars, which the rubric did not require.

How the examples are made and graded: the method. Every task of this job, with its length and when it comes within reach: Customer Service Representatives.