Example output
What an Enlace audit produces
Enlace reads the telemetry your OLTs already produce and turns it into a plain-language report: a fleet health score, the faults worth acting on, and a per-ONT table you can sort and filter. Below is a representative example.
Example output — generated from Enlace's internal validation on representative data. Not customer data.
The report
Fleet health, findings, and every ONT
Click a finding to filter the ONT table. 52 ONTs across four PON branches, analysed over a 7-day window — this is the verbatim JSON the current engine produced from our validation sample, including its own coverage notes.
Fleet Health Score
NEEDS ATTENTION
Findings
| Serial | PON Port | Rx dBm ▲ | Status | Issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADTN-CF001B | CTP-0/2 | -- | OFFLINE (LOS) | Fault affected |
| ADTN-CF001D | CTP-0/2 | -- | OFFLINE (LOS) | Fault affected |
| ADTN-CF001C | CTP-0/2 | -- | OFFLINE (LOS) | Fault affected |
| ADTN-CF001E | CTP-0/2 | -- | OFFLINE (LOS) | Fault affected |
| ADTN-CF000F | CTP-0/1 | -29.0 | LOW SIGNAL | Degrading (7d, ~35% est. churn) |
| ADTN-CF0010 | CTP-0/1 | -29.0 | LOW SIGNAL | Degrading (7d, ~35% est. churn) |
| ADTN-CF002A | CTP-0/3 | -25.2 | ONLINE | Degrading (7d, ~35% est. churn) |
| ADTN-CF0029 | CTP-0/3 | -19.0 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0022 | CTP-0/3 | -18.9 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0018 | CTP-0/2 | -18.8 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0008 | CTP-0/1 | -18.6 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF000A | CTP-0/1 | -18.4 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF002E | CTP-0/4 | -18.4 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF002D | CTP-0/4 | -18.4 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0009 | CTP-0/1 | -18.3 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0021 | CTP-0/3 | -18.2 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0005 | CTP-0/1 | -18.1 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0007 | CTP-0/1 | -18.0 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF000E | CTP-0/1 | -18.0 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF001F | CTP-0/3 | -17.8 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0025 | CTP-0/3 | -17.8 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0013 | CTP-0/2 | -17.7 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0016 | CTP-0/2 | -17.5 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0002 | CTP-0/1 | -17.4 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0026 | CTP-0/3 | -17.4 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF002B | CTP-0/4 | -17.4 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0033 | CTP-0/4 | -17.3 | ONLINE | Fault affected |
| ADTN-CF0001 | CTP-0/1 | -17.2 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF000D | CTP-0/1 | -17.2 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0028 | CTP-0/3 | -17.1 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0032 | CTP-0/4 | -17.1 | ONLINE | Fault affected |
| ADTN-CF002F | CTP-0/4 | -17.1 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0017 | CTP-0/2 | -17.0 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0020 | CTP-0/3 | -17.0 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0024 | CTP-0/3 | -17.0 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0003 | CTP-0/1 | -16.9 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0006 | CTP-0/1 | -16.9 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0031 | CTP-0/4 | -16.9 | ONLINE | Fault affected |
| ADTN-CF0030 | CTP-0/4 | -16.8 | ONLINE | Fault affected |
| ADTN-CF0014 | CTP-0/2 | -16.6 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF001A | CTP-0/2 | -16.5 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0019 | CTP-0/2 | -16.5 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0027 | CTP-0/3 | -16.5 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0012 | CTP-0/2 | -16.4 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0034 | CTP-0/4 | -16.4 | ONLINE | Fault affected |
| ADTN-CF0011 | CTP-0/2 | -16.2 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF002C | CTP-0/4 | -16.2 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0004 | CTP-0/1 | -16.1 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF000B | CTP-0/1 | -16.1 | ONLINE | -- |
| ADTN-CF0015 | CTP-0/2 | -15.9 | ONLINE | -- |
Analysis coverage — stated, not assumed
Pre-FEC health — 0/52 ONTs covered
FEC analysis covered 0 of 52 ONTs; ONTs without FEC counters were not assessed (absence of a finding is not evidence of health)
Laser end-of-life — 0/52 ONTs reporting bias current
No bias-current telemetry in this dataset, so no laser predictions were made — absence of a finding is not evidence of health.
Rogue ONT scan — 0 ports flagged
Passive multi-victim upstream-corruption scoring ran across all PON ports. No rogue-suspect events in this window.
Figures from internal validation on representative data.
What it found
Six findings — including what it refused to claim
Two branch outages, classified by evidence
Five ONTs on CTP-0/4 and four on CTP-0/2 dropped inside the detection window. On CTP-0/4, two sent a dying gasp and three went silent — mixed evidence, so the engine says “Mixed” instead of guessing power vs fibre. Per-ONT gasp evidence is attached to each fault.
Churn risk: 3 customers, assumptions stated
Three subscribers at −25 to −29 dBm with degrading signal — an estimated 35% 90-day churn probability and ~£378/yr revenue at risk each. Every figure carries its assumptions inline (ARPU £89.90, probability model), so the ROI is auditable, not asserted.
One proactive ticket, ready to dispatch
The three churn risks were rolled into a single P2 ticket with a 5-day SLA: evidence lines per ONT, a recommended action, £1,133/yr at risk vs a £450 estimated fix — a 2.5× ROI with the cost assumptions printed on the ticket.
Shared-plant downtrend on CTP-0/1
The whole PON branch is trending down at −0.74 dB/week — roughly 13 weeks to threshold at the current rate. A fleet-wide trend points at shared plant (splitter, feeder, OLT SFP), not any single customer's kit.
Three links running on marginal optical budget
Loss-model analysis of all 52 links found three with ~8 dB more loss than their distance and splitter ratio explain — probable excess connector loss, flagged with the expected-vs-measured maths.
What it refused to claim
This sample has no FEC or laser-bias columns, so the report states “0 of 52 ONTs covered” for those analyses instead of implying health. No ghosts, no flapping, no rogue ONTs were flagged — absence of a finding is reported as absence of evidence, never as a pass.
Want this for your network?
We're onboarding a small number of fibre operators as validation partners. Enlace runs read-only against the OLTs you already have.