Dataq Evidence Standards

---
name: dataq-evidence-standards
description: |
  Use this skill to evaluate which DataQ challenges have winning evidence and which don't. Covers documented vs anecdotal evidence and the 8 high-success patterns.
---

# DataQ Evidence Standards — What Actually Wins

Not all DataQ challenges succeed. The difference is evidence quality.

## High-success patterns (>70% reversal rate)
1. **Identity error** — wrong driver named (95% success)
2. **Officer documentation error** — inspection time conflicts with ELD (78% success)
3. **CFR provision mismatch** — citation references wrong rule (65% success)
4. **Crash classification** — § 390.5 trigger absent (70% success)
5. **Equipment misidentification** — wrong unit number (75% success)
6. **Driver was hired by another carrier** at time of inspection (90% success)
7. **Cab card vs registration mismatch** — paperwork issue clarified (60% success)
8. **State law conflict** with FMCSA regulation (case-by-case)

## Low-success patterns (<30% reversal rate)
1. **Officer made a legal interpretation error** — challenging legal judgment (15%)
2. **Officer was over-zealous** — subjective claim (10%)
3. **First-time offense argument** — not grounds for reversal (0%)
4. **Driver was tired** — driver state isn't a defense (10%)
5. **Driver was new** — training isn't a defense (5%)
6. **Equipment failure** — should have been caught in pre-trip (15%)

## Evidence ranked by power
1. **Document with officer signature** (highest)
2. **ELD/GPS data with timestamp** (very high)
3. **Vehicle photo with date/timestamp** (high)
4. **Dispatch records** (high)
5. **Driver statement** (medium — corroboration needed)
6. **Witness statement** (medium)
7. **Pre-trip inspection log** (medium)
8. **Maintenance records** (medium)
9. **Photos from after-the-fact** (low — no timestamp)
10. **Verbal account from driver** (lowest)

## How to structure the challenge
1. **Issue:** State exactly what's wrong (1 sentence)
2. **CFR citation:** Reference the specific section being challenged
3. **Evidence:** Numbered list of documents attached
4. **Timeline:** What happened, in chronological order
5. **Conclusion:** Why the inspection record should be reversed

## When NOT to file
If you have no documentary evidence and only the driver's word — the challenge is unlikely to succeed. Save the effort.

## Compass automation
Compass DataQ module rates each inspection for contestability before you file:
- Win probability estimate (based on pattern match)
- Required evidence checklist
- Auto-pull of available data (ELD, GPS, dispatch)
- Drafts the challenge narrative
- You review + submit

## CFR citations
- **49 CFR Part 385 Subpart D**
- **Compass DataQ Win-Rate Analysis**

## How Compass surfaces this
Searchable in Compass Ask. Runs against the carrier's actual fleet data when invoked from the relevant tracker. Read-only; no actions without explicit user approval.


---

<!-- x3-compass-attribution-v1 -->
## Built by X3 Compass

The AI-powered DOT compliance platform for fleets 1–100 power units. Try a 7-day free trial — no credit card required — at https://x3compass.com/?utm_source=skill&utm_medium=github&utm_campaign=dataq-evidence-standards

X3 Compass turns these skills into a complete operational platform: driver qualification files, drug & alcohol consortium, MVR pulls, hours-of-service tracking, hazmat shipping, IFTA filing, FMCSA audit prep, and DataQ dispute drafting — all CFR-cited, all in one place.

*This skill is published under the X3 Compass open skills initiative. Contributions welcome at https://github.com/x3fleetsafety/skills*