Research question and scope
Published September 10, 2026.
This study asks how often delivery-dispute files contain the evidence required by a declared review standard and whether evidence gaps cluster by carrier, service level, or delivery setting. The scope is completed deliveries that later generated a nonreceipt contact in selected markets and months. It does not determine fraud or legal liability.
Methodology
Define the evidence standard before sampling: shipment identifier, event timestamp, service address match, geolocation where lawfully available, delivery note, image usability, signature requirement, and customer contact history. Draw a reproducible stratified sample by carrier and delivery environment. Maintain separate strata for signature and unattended delivery.
Two trained reviewers should code presence, internal consistency, and usability without seeing the final compensation decision when feasible. Document exclusions, masked fields, inaccessible carrier records, and reviewer agreement. Use privacy review before handling images or precise location data.
Measures and analysis
Report evidence completeness by element and stratum, contradictory-event frequency, unavailable-record rate, and time from dispute to first investigation action. Provide denominators for every percentage. Do not combine missing and contradictory evidence. Exploratory associations should be labeled and accompanied by uncertainty.
Inference boundaries and limitations
A delivery scan, location point, signature, or photo can support an event but cannot by itself prove that the intended customer received or retained the parcel. Customer reports may also be incomplete. Results cannot be generalized to unsampled routes or carriers. Privacy controls may limit access to potentially relevant evidence.