Research question and scope
Published September 6, 2026.
This study asks whether evidence requests for damaged deliveries are proportionate, accessible, and useful to resolution in one operation. It does not estimate carrier-wide damage rates or determine product safety from photographs.
Capture item class, damage category, safety flag, delivery date, requested evidence types, upload attempts, accessibility alternative, carrier claim requirement, decision, resolution time, and repeat contact. Do not retain image contents in the analysis table.
Outcomes and analysis
Measure evidence request count, upload failure, alternative-route use, time to decision, approval with no extra evidence, repeat requests for the same view, and claim outcome. Separate safety escalations, concealed damage, missing items, and cosmetic packaging damage because their workflows differ.
The Federal Trade Commission consumer advice offers general consumer context. CPSC business guidance describes product safety responsibilities in the United States. Carrier packaging rules should be treated as contract-specific operational sources.
Review a sample to determine whether requested material influenced the decision and whether customers received a workable alternative. Analyze by channel and item class only when consistent coding and sufficient counts exist.
Limitations
Images cannot reliably establish every cause or hazard. Customers who abandon upload are underrepresented in completed claims. Product mix, packaging, weather, and carrier route confound comparisons. Results are local and observational.
Use findings to remove redundant requests and improve safe alternatives. Monitor false denials, safety escalations, data exposure, resolution time, and repeat contact.