Give the AI a filled-in fact sheet (appliance, age, fault, parts, labour hours, your price list and repair-or-replace rule) and ask for three parts: what was found, two priced options in plain English, and your recommendation with a validity date. The technician checks every price and the diagnosis, because the AI writes the explanation, not the numbers.
The question underneath every estimate is whether the customer should repair at all. A good estimate answers it honestly, even when the honest answer is "replace it", because the customer is choosing between two costs and the technician who explains the choice is the one they ring next time. Blank templates give you lines and a total and say nothing about the decision. The worked example below carries the decision from the first fact to the last line.
The job: a nine-year-old washing machine that grinds on the spin
A customer rings about a front-loading washing machine that makes a loud grinding noise on the spin and has left water on the floor after some washes. The technician visits, tests the drum for play, and finds movement at the back, with staining around the rear seal. Those are the signs of worn drum bearings and a leaking seal, and a quick check shows the pump and hoses are dry. The purchase receipt, which the customer finds in a drawer, puts the machine at nine years old.
The technician prices the repair from the supplier's list and the firm's labour guide: a bearing and seal kit, a drive belt that is sensible to replace while the drum is out, 3.5 hours of labour, and a small allowance for grease and sealant. A comparable new machine, from the customer's own look at retail listings, costs about $620. All of these figures are invented for this example, and the diagnostic fee of $65 was paid at the visit and is not credited. What remains is to turn those facts into an estimate the customer can follow in two minutes, and to decide what the firm recommends.
The fact sheet behind the estimate, filled in for this job
Nothing goes into the prompt that the technician has not entered. The fields below are the ones I would insist on, with the washing machine as the filled-in case.
| Field | Entry for this job |
|---|---|
| Appliance | Front-loading washing machine, brand [brand], model [model number from the rating plate] |
| Age and its source | 9 years, from the purchase receipt dated [date] |
| Customer's words | "Loud grinding on the spin and water on the floor after some washes" |
| Technician's findings | Play in the drum at the rear; staining around the rear seal; pump and hoses dry |
| Parts | Bearing and seal kit, part no. [number], genuine, in stock at the supplier, next-day delivery; drive belt |
| Labour | 3.5 hours at $85, from the firm's labour guide |
| Figures (from the spreadsheet) | Kit $68.00; belt $18.00; labour $297.50; consumables $6.00; repair price $389.50 |
| Comparable new price | $620, customer's own check of retail listings |
| Repair as a share of new | 63%, calculated by the technician |
| Our late-life age for this type | 8 years (the firm's own figure) |
| Validity and warranty | Valid 14 days; 90 days on the repaired part and our labour |
| Diagnostic fee | $65, paid at the visit, not credited |
| Appliance sales | We do not sell appliances |
The comparable new price needs a method too. Take it from two or three retail listings for a similar model, note the date, and use the lowest sensible figure, or ask the customer to check and write "your own check of retail listings". Do not ask the assistant to fetch it: tools that browse can return an old, out-of-stock or differently specified price and present it with equal confidence. The number is one of the two that drive the recommendation, so it has to be one a person has looked at.
Two of these fields cause trouble. Model numbers are where assistants misread characters when asked to transcribe a photo of a rating plate, and a wrong digit means the wrong part is ordered, so confirm the number against the plate itself. And age needs a source. Serial and date codes differ between brands, and some brands changed format over the years, so an assistant will happily "decode" one and be wrong. Use the brand's own decoding guide or the receipt, and write the source of the age on the estimate. "About nine years old" with no source is the first thing a customer queries. The tutorial on capturing model, serial and fault code on the first call shows how to have those facts in hand before the visit.
A repair-or-replace rule written down before the first estimate
The old rule of thumb is that a repair costing more than about half the price of a comparable new appliance is hard to justify. One consumer-testing organisation has advised not to spend more than half the price of a new product on repairing an old one, and its newer repair-or-replace tools weigh the appliance's age and purchase price as well, so treat the half-price line as a starting point rather than a law. Write your own version down, in terms of numbers you control, and have the assistant apply it instead of improvising one.
The rule used here is the firm's own and is not an industry standard: recommend replacing only if the repair price is more than half the comparable new price and the appliance is at or past the firm's late-life age for its type. If only one of those is true, call it the customer's choice and explain the trade-off. If neither is true, recommend the repair. The late-life ages come from your own job history. The figures in this example are placeholders: 8 years for washing machines and dishwashers, 9 for tumble dryers and 10 for cookers and fridge-freezers.
If you also sell appliances, say so on the estimate and keep the rule as written. A recommendation to replace from a firm that earns margin on the replacement is only believable if it follows a rule you wrote before the job, not the margin.
What to ask the AI for, and the estimate that comes back
Write an appliance repair estimate in plain English for a customer.
Use only the facts and figures below. Do not look anything up and do not
calculate, round or change any figure.
Structure:
1 What we found (60 words at most).
2 Your two options: list the repair lines exactly as given with the repair
price, then the replacement option with the comparable new price.
3 What we would do: apply the rule below and give the reason in two sentences.
4 Good to know: validity, what happens if we find another fault, how to
approve, warranty.
Explain any part in a short clause the first time it appears. Never use "BER",
"beyond economic repair" or "PCB". No warnings about what might happen unless
the findings say so. No pressure and no urgency.
Rule: recommend replacing only if the repair price is more than half the
comparable new price AND the appliance is at or past our late-life age; if only
one is true, call it the customer's choice and explain both sides; if neither,
recommend repair.
Facts and figures: [paste the fact sheet]With that prompt, an estimate should come back close to this:
Estimate for your washing machine
Valid until [date, 14 days from today]What we found. Your washing machine is about nine years old, going by the purchase receipt dated [date]. The drum has movement at the back and there is staining around the rear seal. That means the bearings the drum spins on are worn and the seal has started to leak, which explains the grinding and the water on the floor. The pump and hoses are fine.
Option A: repair. Bearing and seal kit $68.00. Drive belt, replaced while the drum is out, $18.00. Labour, 3.5 hours at $85, $297.50. Workshop consumables $6.00. Repair price: $389.50.
Option B: replace. A comparable new machine currently costs about $620, going by your own check of retail listings. We do not sell machines, so we have nothing to gain from this option.
What we would do. The repair costs about 63% of a new machine, and the machine is nine years old. Fitting new bearings does not make the rest of the machine any younger, so on those figures we lean towards replacing it. If you would rather keep it, the repair is a reasonable choice, and we stand behind the replaced parts and our labour for 90 days.
Good to know. This estimate is valid for 14 days, because parts prices can change after that. Prices are shown before any tax that applies. If we find another fault while the machine is open, we will stop and call you before doing anything extra. To approve the repair, reply YES to this message.
The recommendation is not a nudge. It states both numbers behind it, it says what a new bearing cannot do, and it leaves the decision with the customer. That is the part blank templates never show, and the part a customer can check against a second opinion.
Four edits the first draft needed
Assistants rarely return the clean version first time. A first draft for this job needed four edits before it could go anywhere:
- A promise. It wrote "this price is guaranteed". Prices can change after the validity date, and the wording contradicted the 14-day line directly beneath it.
- A scare. It added "a failing bearing can damage the drum and cause serious flooding". The technician found no damage and no flooding risk beyond the leak, so the sentence was deleted. The prompt now says no warnings unless the findings mention them.
- Jargon. It described the machine as "beyond economic repair". The customer would have to look that up, and it sounds like a verdict. The phrase became "we lean towards replacing it", with the reasons.
- A different warranty. It wrote "12 months" because most appliance repair pages say something like that. The fact sheet said 90 days. Any figure you do not supply, an assistant supplies for you.
None of those was an arithmetic error, but they are the kind of mistakes that survive a skim read, which is why the technician reads the estimate against the fact sheet line by line.
Plain English for parts, choices and risk
Keep a small glossary in the project instructions so every estimate explains the same things the same way:
| Technician's term | What the estimate says |
|---|---|
| Drum bearings | The bearings the drum spins on |
| Control board or PCB | The circuit board that runs the programmes |
| Sealed system (fridge-freezer) | The cooling circuit, which is sealed and needs specialist work to open |
| Beyond economic repair | Not worth repairing, with the two numbers that show why |
| Genuine or OEM part | A part made or approved by the appliance's manufacturer |
| Aftermarket part | A compatible part made by another company; say if it is cheaper and how it differs in warranty |
| Diagnostic fee | The charge for the visit and for finding the fault |
Three habits make the wording honest. State what you found before what you propose, so the recommendation visibly follows the evidence. Give the age with its source and the comparison price with its source. And describe a risk only when the technician has recorded one: if the fault involves gas, mains electricity or water that has reached the wiring, say so plainly and say what to do, but never add a worst case to make a repair sound more urgent.
Five jobs through the same rule, five different outcomes
The rule gives different answers as the numbers change. The table runs five invented jobs through it, using the late-life ages listed above.
| Appliance and age | Fault and what the price covers | Repair price | Comparable new | Share | Outcome under the rule |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Washing machine, 9 years | Worn drum bearings, leaking seal: kit, belt, 3.5 hours' labour, consumables | $389.50 | $620 | 63% | Over half and past late-life age: lean towards replacing |
| Dishwasher, 4 years | Failed drain pump: pump $54, one hour's labour $85 | $139 | $540 | 26% | Neither condition: recommend repair |
| Cooker, 11 years | Faulty control board: board $165, one hour's labour $85 | $250 | $780 | 32% | Age only: the customer's choice |
| Fridge-freezer, 6 years | Leak in the sealed cooling circuit: repair, regas and labour | $430 | $700 | 61% | Share only: the customer's choice |
| Tumble dryer, 6 years | Burnt-out element and thermostat: parts $38 and $14, one hour's labour $85 | $137 | $450 | 30% | Neither condition: recommend repair |
The two "customer's choice" rows are the ones that need the best writing, because the assistant has to say that both answers are reasonable and still be useful. Here is the closing paragraph of the cooker estimate, as a model:
What we would do. The repair costs about 32% of a new cooker, which is modest. The cooker is also 11 years old, past the age at which we start to treat an appliance of this type as late in its life. Both choices are reasonable: repairing keeps a cooker that otherwise works, and replacing avoids paying for a repair on an older appliance. We are happy to go ahead with either, and the estimate stays open for 14 days while you decide.
For the six-year-old fridge-freezer the paragraph turns the other way round. It says the repair costs a little over half the price of a new one, that the machine is still young by the firm's measure, and that repairing it is reasonable if the customer prefers, while replacing is reasonable if they would rather not risk another fault. The numbers do the arguing, not the adjectives, and a customer can see exactly which of the two conditions each appliance met.
When the customer asks whether a cheaper part will do
Some customers answer an estimate with one question: is there a cheaper way? Often there is a second option on the parts side, a compatible part made by another company instead of the manufacturer's own, and it belongs on the estimate as a priced line rather than a vague "we might be able to do it for less". Take the four-year-old dishwasher from the table. The genuine drain pump costs $54, and suppose the supplier also lists a compatible pump at $31 (both prices invented here; in practice both come from the supplier's list on the day). With the same hour of labour, the two repair prices are $139 and $116.
A customer asked whether a cheaper part is available. Add a second repair
option that uses the compatible part. Use only the facts below. State the
price, who makes the part and the warranty we give on it. Do not say whether
either part is better, do not say how long either will last, and do not change
the recommendation.
Genuine pump: $54, made by [appliance manufacturer], our warranty 90 days
Compatible pump: $31, made by [part maker], our warranty [period we set]
Labour: 1 hour at $85, from the labour guide
Repair prices (from the spreadsheet): $139 genuine, $116 compatibleThe draft that came back priced both options correctly and added one sentence that had to go: "The compatible pump is just as reliable and will last just as long as the original." Nobody at the firm has records that show that, so the assistant invented a reassurance. The honest version is shorter: "The compatible pump is made by [part maker] rather than the manufacturer. It costs $23 less, and we cover it for [period] rather than 90 days." The recommendation stays the same either way. At $139 or $116 against a $540 machine (26% or 21%), and at four years old, the rule still says repair, and the customer picks the part.
When the answer is replace: the note that closes the job
An estimate that recommends replacing often ends with no repair, and that visit still deserves a tidy record. The customer has paid a diagnostic fee and may want something to show a retailer, a landlord or a service-plan provider. Give the assistant the same fact sheet and ask for a closing note of five sentences at most: what was found, the two numbers behind the recommendation, the fee paid, and the fact that the estimate stays open if they change their mind. For the washing machine, the edited note reads:
Thank you for having us look at your washing machine. We found worn drum bearings and a leaking rear seal. The repair would cost $389.50, about 63% of the $620 you found for a comparable new machine, and the machine is nine years old, so we suggested replacing it. You paid a $65 diagnostic fee at the visit. If you decide to repair it after all, this estimate stays valid until [date].
The first draft of that note ended with "We recommend the [brand] [model] as a reliable replacement." Delete any line like that unless the firm has decided to recommend models and can say why. A repairer that does not sell machines has no reason to pick one for the customer, and a model chosen by an assistant is a guess presented as advice. The note also matters later: if the customer rings back in a fortnight, whoever answers can read exactly what was found and what was said.
Validity, extra faults and approval: the small print that matters
The "good to know" paragraph does a lot of work. It says how long the estimate stands and why (parts prices move), what happens if a second fault appears (stop and call first), how the customer approves (a reply, a signature, a payment link) and what the firm stands behind. Rules about estimates, written approval and extra work differ from place to place, so have your lawyer or trade body read the standard paragraph once. The tutorial on the difference between a quote and an estimate explains what each word commits you to, which helps you choose the wording that matches how you really work.
Decide the diagnostic fee line once. If you charge for the visit, say so and say whether it is credited to a repair; the decision rule on charging for estimates covers the trade-offs. Then have the assistant repeat the sentence word for word. After the estimate is sent, some customers will go quiet, and a short, honest follow-up beats silence; following up unapproved repair estimates with AI covers it.
Checking every price before it goes
The assistant writes, the technician signs off. For the first ten estimates, read each one in full against the fact sheet. After that, check the same short list every time:
- The part number matches the supplier's list and the price is today's price, not last month's.
- The labour hours match your guide, and the rate is the current rate.
- The lines add up. Put them in a spreadsheet with a SUM and paste the finished total into the prompt: $68.00 + $18.00 + $297.50 + $6.00 = $389.50. A language model can slip on sums while sounding certain, so it never adds.
- The share is right: $389.50 divided by $620 is 0.628, or 63%.
- The recommendation matches the written rule, including the "customer's choice" case.
- The validity date, warranty period and diagnostic-fee sentence are the standard ones.
- No warning, promise or jargon has appeared that the fact sheet does not contain.
One slip is worth building a check against: a part number copied from last week's estimate for a similar model. The estimate carries a part number, the customer approves, and a part for a different model arrives a day later. It happens because the part line is the easiest one to copy. The fix is structural. The fact sheet gets a field for the model number from the rating plate, the estimate prints the model and the part number side by side, and the checklist item reads "part number matches this model", so a mismatch is visible to the technician and to the customer.
The time sum is worth doing once. If writing an estimate by hand takes 12 minutes and the fact sheet plus a check takes 5, then 10 estimates a week saves 70 minutes, about five hours a month. If your technicians are typing the same details into the fact sheet and then rewriting the draft, the saving disappears, and the fix is a better fact sheet (a form in your job software works well), not a better prompt. Keep the prompt, the glossary and the rule in a ChatGPT Project or a Claude Project so every estimate starts from the same instructions. For the marketing side of the same idea, where honest repair-or-replace wording lives on your website, see the sibling tutorial on appliance repair marketing: local pages and review requests.
What to count after a month of AI-drafted estimates
Four numbers from your job software show whether the routine works: estimates sent, estimates approved, questions customers asked before deciding, and edits the technician made to each draft before sending. The questions are the most revealing. If several customers ask what a part does, the glossary is missing a line. If they ask why a repair costs so much, the "what we found" paragraph is not connecting the fault to the work, and the fix is a sentence in the prompt asking it to say which finding each line answers.
Edits per draft should fall as the fact sheet and prompt settle. If they do not, read five edited drafts side by side and look for the sentence the technician deletes every time; that sentence goes into the prompt as a ban. Treat the approval rate with care. An honest replace recommendation lowers it on purpose, so count replace recommendations separately, and never tune the prompt to push approvals up. A month in which 40 estimates went out, 26 were approved, 8 ended in a replace recommendation and 6 went quiet tells you something specific: the 6 quiet ones are where a short follow-up helps, and the 8 are the rule doing its job.
Estimate questions appliance repairers ask about AI
Should the diagnostic fee be credited against the repair?
It is a pricing choice, and either works if the estimate says which. Crediting it can nudge a hesitant customer towards approving the repair, while charging it outright covers your time when the answer is to replace. Many firms credit it only if the repair goes ahead. Decide once, write it into the fact sheet, and make the assistant repeat the same sentence on every estimate.
Can AI work out the repair cost from a photo or a description?
No. It can suggest what to check and which questions to ask, but it cannot know your supplier's price today, your labour times or what the technician found with the back off. Any cost it offers is a guess presented fluently. Prices come from your price list and labour guide, and the assistant's job starts after they have been entered.
What if the appliance is still under warranty or a service plan?
Ask for the purchase date and any plan paperwork before you write the estimate, and do not state what is covered. The manufacturer or plan provider decides that, and a technician who tells the customer it will be free can end up paying for it. If cover is possible, say that you have asked them to check with the provider before anything is booked.
Further reads
- Appliance Repair Software Compared: Scheduling, Parts, Warranty and AI — Software that holds parts, warranty and scheduling in one place.
- Seven AI Tools for Appliance Repair Companies and What Each Costs — Seven AI tools an appliance firm can use, with what each costs.
- AI Tools and AI Development: The Complete 2026 Guide — the AI hub, including every tutorial in the AI-for-business series.
Sources: widely quoted consumer guidance on the half-the-price repair-or-replace rule of thumb, which has since been refined into tools that weigh age and purchase price; ChatGPT and Claude documentation on Projects. Every price, age and warranty figure in the examples is illustrative.