F-0018 An internal email said to concern a residential fire alarm's voice

(Said to be a copy of an email thread. Some of the sender, recipient, and date fields are withheld.)

From: Inquiry Desk, M
To: Quality Control, K
Subject: Inquiry regarding a fire alarm’s voice (customer in Matsudo)
Date: Feb ◯, 2026, 17:◯◯

Hello. Just sharing, for the record, the matter of the call we received earlier.

A customer in a condominium in Matsudo City (the model in question, installed several years ago) reported that the voice at inspection, “All normal,” has gradually come to resemble a member of her family. As per policy, I explained that there is no individual variation in this model’s voice. She sent us a recording, and when we played it back here, it was the ordinary synthesized voice.

I handled it by the book up to here, but just one thing. Last month, a customer in a different region made an inquiry worded almost the same way. They too said it had “come to resemble a family member’s voice.” We closed that one as no individual variation as well. It’s only two cases, so I imagine it’s a coincidence, but if inquiries about the voice keep coming in for the same model, should we share it with engineering once?

(This is my personal aside, off the record. When I said there is no individual variation, the customer fell silent for a moment. It was not the silence of someone troubled. I can’t put it well.)

That’s all; thank you.

Inquiry Desk, M

———

From: Quality Control, K
To: Inquiry Desk, M
Subject: Re: Inquiry regarding a fire alarm’s voice (customer in Matsudo)
Date: Feb ◯, 2026, 18:◯◯

Your handling by policy is fine. There is no individual variation. Since the recording was the ordinary voice as well, there is no need to pursue it any further.

The two cases are a coincidence. There is no need to share it with engineering.

Please do not leave your personal impressions of the customer’s manner in the response record.