--000000000000c2436e06347e7a77 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c2436d06347e7a76" --000000000000c2436d06347e7a76 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, Thank you for providing the follow-up email and additional clarification regarding the system's response. I was unaware of the alert's details, so I appreciate the explanation. The breakdown provided makes sense, and this answer is sufficient to address the concerns raised. It seems like the system's behaviour was due to the door not being fully closed, which kept it from remaining in vacation mode, ultimately leading to the alert. It's good information, and we could troubleshoot this issue again if necessary. Regards, Chuck On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 2:43=E2=80=AFPM Timothy Thomas wrote= : > Re: Lifeguard issue, Chuck, please see below and let me know what you > think. > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Maryham Levesque > Date: Tue, May 6, 2025 at 4:14=E2=80=AFPM > Subject: Fw: John Jack Kokotailo > To: Timothy Thomas , Nathanial Findlay nfindlay@joinlifeguard.com> > Cc: Steven Ferguson , Meighen Fitzpatrick mfitzpatrick@joinlifeguard.com> > > > Hi Tim, > I hope you're doing well. > Please find below the details of the response I sent to Shawntel on May > 5th, along with the follow-up I sent today. > It appears, unfortunately, that this information may not have been relaye= d > to Chuck. > Best regards, > > > > *Maryham Levesque * > > *Director of Clinical and Customer Services* > > Toll-free: (888) 667-1224 > > Direct line: 438-799-4409 > > *mlevesque@joinlifeguard.com * > > *Schedule a meeting* > > > > [image: A blue and white logo Description automatically generated] > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Maryham Levesque > *Sent:* May 6, 2025 4:08 PM > *To:* Shawntel Sousa > *Subject:* Re: John Jack Kokotailo > > Hi Shawntel, > I hope you're doing well. I wanted to follow up with you after speaking > with the product team to provide more clarity regarding Jack and the > concerns that were raised. > First and foremost, I hope Jack is recovering safely and comfortably. > As mentioned yesterday, the system is designed to avoid triggering false > alarms when a client is simply out of the home. It does this by identifyi= ng > a sequence of events =E2=80=94 motion inside the home, followed by a door > open/close, and then an absence of motion =E2=80=94 which transitions the= system > into a =E2=80=9Cvacation mode.=E2=80=9D > This is exactly what happened in Jack=E2=80=99s case initially. However, = the > inactivity alert was triggered yesterday because the system registered th= at > someone had entered the home (based on the door sensor), but then did not > detect any motion following Jack=E2=80=99s typical wake-up time. > It=E2=80=99s possible that whoever came to check on the home may not have= fully > closed the door, which would have prevented the system from entering or > remaining in =E2=8