{"id":4533,"date":"2026-10-19T18:43:59","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T18:43:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sanyangmedical.com\/fault-code-sheet-dealer-service-agreement\/"},"modified":"2026-10-19T18:43:59","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T18:43:59","slug":"fault-code-sheet-dealer-service-agreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sanyangmedical.com\/id\/fault-code-sheet-dealer-service-agreement\/","title":{"rendered":"One Fault, Three Names: Put a Fault-Code Sheet in the Dealer Agreement"},"content":{"rendered":"

A claim stops being a negotiation the moment one fault reaches the factory under a code that the hospital, the dealer and the factory already agree on. That takes a sheet rather than a paragraph: a closed symptom list per product family, a mapping row per fault across the three vocabularies, a rule that a claim may only be opened on a listed code, a safety flag on any code that could hide an incident, a trend rule, and a named owner for changes. Agree it now, attach it to the dealer agreement, and reference it from the warranty terms.<\/p>\n

One Fault, Three Names, and No Shared Vocabulary<\/h2>\n

Three records exist for every fault, and none of them is wrong. The hospital\u2019s report is accurate about the theatre, the work order about what had to be done on site, the return code about what the factory can count. The trouble starts two years later, when the three must be read as one history. At that point somebody translates, and translation is where a claim becomes a correspondence exercise. A unit sold two years ago is then argued from its own record, and a repeat failure becomes countable instead of anecdotal.<\/p>\n

The hospital writes what it saw<\/h3>\n

A theatre nurse does not report a pump solenoid. She reports that the table would not go down with a patient on it, late in a long list, shortly after the hand control had been dropped once. That sentence carries the two things a factory needs most, the operating condition and the sequence, in a form no return code accepts. The usual response asks for model and serial and drops the rest, which is the diagnostic content.<\/p>\n

The dealer writes what it had to fix<\/h3>\n

A work order closes a job: what was replaced, what was adjusted, what was invoiced. It is written by a technician who has already decided the cause, and that decision compresses the story. Two faults with the same symptom produce two different lines because two technicians chose different words.<\/p>\n

The factory writes what it can count<\/h3>\n

A return code exists so that a year of returns can be grouped and repeat failures spotted. That is a different job from describing a room, and a list built for cost attribution is deliberately stable and coarser than the fault. That stability is why a claim must reach the code through a defined route. The route is what the dealer agreement lacks.<\/p>\n

Build the Sheet in Six Moves<\/h2>\n

The order matters: each move feeds the next. Starting from the code list gives a document nobody uses after a month.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Fix the unit before the vocabulary.<\/strong> Model, serial number, commissioning date and configuration as delivered, taken from the commissioning record rather than retyped. A code attached to a product family cannot be trended on a fleet you own.<\/li>\n
  2. Ask the factory for the list it already types into.<\/strong> A list invented for the annex is abandoned the first time the factory\u2019s service software refuses it. Ask for the internal list plus a published mapping layer on top.<\/li>\n
  3. Reduce the hospital\u2019s sentences to a closed symptom list per product family.<\/strong> Each entry needs the wording a user would really say, the subsystem it points at, and the observations separating it from the neighbouring entry. Forty entries cannot be used at a bedside; a dozen plus a route for anything that does not fit can.<\/li>\n
  4. Fill the middle column with fields, not adjectives.<\/strong> Serial number, date, what the user was doing, what was observed, what was tried, what was ruled out, and the state of the unit at failure. All of it must be captured at the call, because none of it can be reconstructed a week later.<\/li>\n
  5. Flag the safety codes.<\/strong> Any code that could represent death or serious deterioration gets a flag and a route that leaves the warranty lane. The two lanes run in parallel and neither closes the other.<\/li>\n
  6. Name an owner per side and write the version rule.<\/strong> Who may add a code, how a new version is announced, and what happens to a claim that arrives against an older version.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Mapping Table Is the Real Deliverable<\/h2>\n

    Every other item in the annex is a heading until the table has rows. These three columns get signed, and they double as the test of whether the parties are serious: a table that cannot name a subsystem for a visited symptom is not finished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    What the hospital says<\/th>\nWhat the dealer must capture<\/th>\nWhat the factory code must resolve to<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    The table will not go down<\/td>\nWhich control was used, whether the hand control or the foot switch was tried, whether mains power was present, and the position it stopped at<\/td>\nThe lowering subsystem family, and whether the fault sits in the control, the hydraulic circuit or the supply<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    One light head flickers during a case<\/td>\nWhich head, the intensity setting, how long the unit had been running, whether the second head was affected, and what else in the room was running<\/td>\nThe head or driver family, and whether the report matches earlier reports against the same head position<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    The pendant drifts after we let go<\/td>\nWhether the brake was applied, arm or column, the load on the shelf, and whether it drifted with the gas hoses connected or without them<\/td>\nThe braking family, and whether the cause is adjustment, wear or an obstructed mechanism<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    The battery does not last the way it used to<\/td>\nThe date code on the battery, how the unit is normally left between cases, and the last recorded runtime check<\/td>\nThe battery or charging family grouped with the date code, so the fleet sorts by age rather than by complaint<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Nobody can tell us what is wrong with it<\/td>\nEverything observed, everything ruled out, and who tried what<\/td>\nThe unclassified code, which routes straight to the factory and cannot be closed as no fault found by default<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    The code families in the third column are shapes, not a factory list. The factory\u2019s own codes go in at signature and are the only part the buyer does not write.<\/p>\n

    \n\"Paper
    Three sets of printed records for one failed unit. Until they carry one code, nobody can prove they describe the same fault.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    The middle column is the one that gets skipped<\/h3>\n

    Dealers skip it because the technician is at the machine with a spanner in one hand and the form in the van. Factories skip it because their intake form asks only for model, serial, part and action. Both shortcuts are rational on the day and expensive two years later.<\/p>\n

    Keep free text, but confine it<\/h3>\n

    A closed list with no free field fails on the first unusual fault, because the technician picks the nearest wrong code rather than admit nothing fits. Confine free text to the observation field, keep the code field closed, and keep one unclassified code that must be escalated. That structure also settles the operator question, since whether the unit ever worked and what was tried belong in the same observation, and telling the two apart has its own method, set out in this note on separating operator error from equipment failure<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Sort the Safety Codes Out First<\/h2>\n

    A warranty lane answers a commercial question: is this covered, and who pays. A vigilance lane answers a regulatory one. A manufacturer\u2019s published quality agreement is a useful model, because it defines the terms that must stay apart before anyone argues money: complaint, device non-conformity, recall, field safety corrective action and field safety notice. In that quality agreement<\/a> the two conversations are separated by definition. The duties behind the second lane, including the reporting clocks under EU MDR Article 87, are set out in this site\u2019s guide to medical device vigilance reporting<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Two rules belong here. A code that can represent a serious incident is flagged in the list itself, not discovered during a claim. And a goodwill replacement ends the warranty conversation without closing the complaint, which keeps its own file and clock. Watch the polite codes hardest, meaning no fault found and user error.<\/p>\n

    Put the Trend Rule in the Same Annex<\/h2>\n

    This is the part the template libraries leave out. A published sample clause<\/a> promises that the goods are free from material defect for a period from delivery, then stops. Nothing requires either side to count anything, which is why a two-year-old fleet can produce the same failure four times and treat it as four unrelated events. One paragraph fixes it:<\/p>\n