---
title: "How to Choose Logistics Control Tower Software: Network Visibility, Exception Playbooks, and Analytics"
id: "27017"
type: "post"
slug: "how-to-choose-control-tower-software"
published_at: "2026-09-14T15:00:00+00:00"
modified_at: "2026-09-24T10:17:35+00:00"
url: "https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-control-tower-software/"
markdown_url: "https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-control-tower-software.md"
excerpt: "Evaluate logistics control tower software across three pillars: network visibility, exception playbooks, and analytics. Includes vendor questions and red flags."
taxonomy_category:
  - "General"
---

#### [General](https://locus.sh/blogs/category/general/)

# How to Choose Logistics Control Tower Software: Network Visibility, Exception Playbooks, and Analytics

[Team Locus](/author/team-locus/)

Sep 14, 2026

20 mins read

## Key Takeaways

- The logistics control tower market spans simple tracking dashboards and sophisticated decision intelligence platforms. Both are sold as control towers. The evaluation criteria in this guide are designed to identify which category a vendor’s platform actually belongs to
- Network visibility is only valuable if the data feeding it is current. A carrier status update from 4 hours ago is background information. A status update from 4 minutes ago is operational intelligence. Data freshness is the most important single variable in network visibility and the most frequently undersold in vendor presentations
- Exception playbooks determine whether detected exceptions become resolved outcomes. A platform that detects exceptions but routes every one to a dispatcher for manual triage has not automated exception management. It has automated exception detection and left management as a human problem
- Analytics in a control tower context has two distinct purposes: operational reporting, which shows what is happening now and recently, and predictive intelligence, which identifies which shipments are at risk before the exception occurs. Most platforms do the former well and the latter poorly
- The most common control tower disappointment is data integration. A consolidated network view in a demo can take 12 to 18 months of integration work to achieve in production. The evaluation must include a specific assessment of integration effort, not just a demonstration of connected data

[Schedule a Demo With Locus Today](https://locus.sh/schedule-demo/)

The term “logistics control tower” covers a wide range of platforms.

At one end, it describes a multi-carrier tracking dashboard that consolidates shipment status from connected data sources. At the other end, it describes a decision intelligence platform that detects exceptions, evaluates response options, executes routine corrections automatically, and delivers analytics that improve future planning.

Most enterprise logistics organizations need the second category. Most control tower software evaluations do not reveal which category a platform belongs to until implementation is underway.

This guide provides an evaluation framework organized around three pillars, network visibility, exception playbooks, and analytics, with vendor questions designed to surface implementation quality, not feature presence.

## What Logistics Control Tower Software Is Supposed to Do

A [logistics control tower](https://locus.sh/blogs/what-is-a-logistics-control-tower/)
 provides three functions: visibility into what is happening in the logistics network right now, exception management that converts detected problems into resolved outcomes, and analytics that improve operational decisions over time. These functions are related but distinct.

A platform that excels at visibility but lacks exception playbooks shows you the problem without helping you solve it. A platform with excellent playbooks but poor visibility detects only the exceptions it can see, missing the majority of the network. A platform with strong visibility and playbooks but weak analytics resolves individual exceptions without learning from the patterns that would prevent future ones.

### The gap between visibility and operational intelligence

| Visibility platform | Operational intelligence platform |
| --- | --- |
| Aggregates and displays data from connected sources | Aggregates, normalizes, and interprets data to surface what requires attention |
| Shows current shipment status across carriers | Shows which shipments are at risk relative to committed SLAs, not just where they are |
| Generates alerts when thresholds are crossed | Evaluates alert context and routes each exception to the appropriate response workflow |
| Reports on past performance | Identifies patterns that predict future exceptions before they occur |
| Requires human triage for every exception | Executes routine responses automatically and escalates only exceptions that require judgment |
| Measures itself by data coverage | Measures itself by exception resolution rate and SLA performance improvement |

## Pillar 1: Network Visibility: Seeing the Full Picture in Real Time

Network visibility is the real-time aggregation of logistics status data from across the supply chain.

For a control tower platform, this means connecting to carrier tracking APIs, warehouse management systems, port and customs data, and last-mile delivery systems to produce a single, current view of where goods are and how they are progressing against plan.

The quality of network visibility depends on four dimensions: coverage breadth (how many nodes and carriers are included), data freshness (how current the data is), normalization (whether inconsistent status terminology from different sources is translated into a consistent language), and hierarchy (whether the view drills from network level to carrier level to individual shipment without requiring separate system logins).

**Also read:** [Retail Logistics Software for Enterprise Networks in 2026](https://locus.sh/blogs/retail-logistics-software/)

### What network visibility must cover

- **Carrier network breadth:** The number of carriers from which the platform can receive tracking data through a pre-built integration, not a custom API project. A platform that lists 200 carrier integrations but has 40 of them pre-built and the rest requiring 4-6 weeks of custom work each has effectively 40 carriers available at implementation
- **Status normalization:** Carrier status codes are not standardized. “In transit” means different things on different carrier systems. A control tower that displays carrier status codes verbatim and does not normalize them to a consistent taxonomy requires users to mentally translate between carrier-specific terminology to understand the network view
- **Multi-modal coverage:** If your network includes full truckload, LTL, parcel, ocean, and air, the visibility platform must cover all modes with equivalent data quality. A platform that is comprehensive for parcel and superficial for ocean freight creates a blind spot at the boundary between modes
- **Last-mile visibility:** The last-mile leg is often the most customer-visible and the most exception-prone. A control tower that has strong carrier visibility for the line-haul leg but loses the shipment at the last-mile handoff to a local carrier is missing the leg that affects customer experience most directly
- **Inventory and warehouse node visibility:** A network view that shows transit status without showing inventory levels at fulfillment nodes cannot support the proactive exception detection needed to prevent stockouts before they become delivery failures

### Data freshness and update frequency

Data freshness is the most important dimension of network visibility and the most undersold in vendor presentations. A demo built from a pre-connected test environment may show near-real-time updates that production deployments cannot replicate for all carrier types.

| Data source type | Typical update frequency | Operational implication |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Carrier APIs (major, high-quality) | Minutes to near-real-time | Exception detection possible within the SLA response window; early intervention viable |
| Carrier EDI (standard freight) | 4 to 12 hours batch | Exceptions often discovered after the response window has closed; historical tracking only |
| Manual carrier updates (smaller carriers) | 24+ hour delay or on-request only | Not useful for exception management; only provides basic transit confirmation |
| Warehouse and node systems | Dependent on WMS integration depth; often batch | Inventory position is 4-8 hours stale; stockout detection lags real-world depletion |
| Last-mile carrier APIs | Minutes (app-based drivers) to hours (EDI carriers) | Quality varies significantly by carrier type; ask specifically about last-mile coverage |

[https://locus.sh/ship-flex/](https://locus.sh/ship-flex/)

ShipFlex aggregates carrier status data from 160+ active carriers within a broader network of 1,000+ pre-integrated partners, providing the multi-carrier coverage breadth that network visibility requires without custom API projects for each carrier

## Pillar 2: Exception Playbooks: From Detection to Resolution

An exception playbook is a predefined response workflow for a specific exception type.

When the network visibility layer detects an exception, the playbook determines what happens next: who is notified, what actions are evaluated, what automatic responses can be taken without human approval, and what escalation path is followed when the initial response is insufficient.

Exception playbooks are what separate a detection system from a management system.

Detection without a playbook produces an alert that joins a queue of alerts waiting for a dispatcher’s attention. A playbook converts that alert into a managed workflow with a defined owner, a defined response set, and a tracked resolution path.

### How exception playbooks work

A well-designed exception playbook has five stages:

- **Detection:** The platform identifies a deviation from plan: a shipment is 18 hours behind its committed delivery date based on the last tracking event and projected transit time
- **Classification:** The exception is categorized by type (transit delay, carrier capacity failure, customs hold, damage event) and severity (minor, at-risk, breached). Classification determines which playbook is applied and which response options are available
- **Notification:** The relevant parties are notified based on the exception type and severity. A minor delay might notify the logistics analyst. A breached SLA with financial penalty exposure notifies the account manager and the carrier account team simultaneously
- **Response evaluation:** The platform evaluates available responses: can the delivery be expedited through an alternative carrier? Can the delivery window be re-communicated to the customer before the original commitment expires? Is a manual override required for the response decision?
- **Escalation and tracking:** If the initial response does not resolve the exception within a defined timeframe, the platform escalates to the next level in the defined escalation path. The exception remains tracked until it is resolved

### Evaluating playbook sophistication

Playbook sophistication ranges from simple threshold alerting to multi-step automated response. The questions that reveal where a platform sits on this spectrum:

- **Automatic vs. manual response:** For a transit delay that can be recovered by switching to an expedited carrier, can the platform execute the carrier switch automatically within defined parameters, or does every response require dispatcher approval? The answer determines whether playbooks reduce dispatcher workload or just organize it
- **Context-aware escalation:** Does the escalation path know who the account manager is for the specific customer affected by the exception? Does the escalation notification include the full exception context (shipment ID, committed date, customer contact) or just an alert that requires the recipient to go look it up?
- **Resolution tracking:** After a playbook is triggered, is the exception tracked to resolution with a record of what response was taken and when? Or does the platform consider the exception managed when the notification was sent?
- **Playbook configuration:** Can playbooks be configured per exception type, customer tier, carrier, or geographic lane? Or is there one generic alerting threshold for all exception types?

[https://locus.sh/dispatch-management-software/](https://locus.sh/dispatch-management-software/)

DispatchIQ evaluates available response options when an exception is detected and executes automated responses within defined parameters, escalating to Mycroft AI Co-Pilot’s dispatcher interface when human judgment is required

## Pillar 3: Analytics: Turning Data Into Decisions

Analytics in a logistics control tower serve two distinct purposes that should be evaluated separately.

**Operational analytics** measure current and recent performance, supporting day-to-day management decisions. **Predictive analytics** identify which shipments or lanes are at risk before the exception occurs, supporting proactive intervention before exceptions occur.

### Operational analytics vs. reporting

Operational reporting answers: what happened? Carrier OTIF by lane over the last 30 days. Exception rate by carrier and origin. Average dwell time at hub X. Cost per delivery by mode and lane. These metrics are essential for carrier management, cost control, and performance reviews.

Operational analytics goes further: what does this tell us about how to manage differently today? An OTIF report shows that Carrier A is underperforming on the Northeast corridor. Operational analytics asks: should Carrier A receive less volume on that corridor next week, and which shipments currently allocated to Carrier A should be re-routed?

The distinction is between data that informs and data that directs. Reporting platforms produce the former; operational analytics platforms produce both.

Evaluate whether the platform surfaces the operational decision that follows from the data, or stops at displaying the data and leaves the decision to the user.

### The predictive dimension

Predictive analytics in logistics control towers addresses a specific problem: by the time an exception is detected, the optimal response window may have already passed. A shipment that will miss its delivery date by 48 hours is much more recoverable 10 days before the delivery date than 24 hours before it.

Predictive capabilities to look for:

- **Carrier on-time risk scoring:** Does the platform score the on-time risk of active shipments based on historical carrier performance on the specific lane, time of year, and current conditions? A score that identifies high-risk shipments while the response window is still open is more valuable than a retrospective analysis of shipments that missed their dates
- **ETA prediction from current status:** Given a shipment’s current position and the carrier’s historical performance on the remaining route, what is the most accurate predicted arrival time? This is distinct from the carrier’s stated ETA, which is based on their planned schedule and may not reflect current performance
- **Demand-driven inventory risk:** If demand is trending above forecast for a specific product, does the analytics layer flag the associated delivery pipeline for capacity risk before the shortfall occurs at the warehouse?
- **Exception probability:** Can the platform identify, at order creation or shipment booking, which orders have a statistically higher probability of encountering a transit exception, so they can be proactively managed before the exception occurs?

## How the Three Pillars Connect

Network visibility, exception playbooks, and analytics form a closed-loop system when they work together.

- **Visibility feeds playbooks:** Exception playbooks can only trigger when the visibility layer detects the exception. A visibility layer with 4-hour data lag on critical carriers will trigger playbooks 4 hours after the response window was most open
- **Playbooks generate analytics inputs:** Every exception that goes through a playbook generates a record: what type of exception, what response was taken, how long it took to resolve, and whether the resolution was successful. This data is the input for the analytics layer to identify which exception types are most frequent, most costly, and most recoverable
- **Analytics improve playbooks:** Exceptiin analytics should feed back into playbook configuration. If the data shows that transit delay playbooks on Carrier A in the Northwest lane consistently produce resolutions that take longer than 48 hours, the playbook for that carrier-lane combination should be updated to escalate faster or to use an alternative carrier automatically

The feedback loop is what converts a [control tower](https://locus.sh/blogs/control-towers-supply-chain-decision-making/)
 from a reactive management tool into an improving one. Without analytics feeding back into playbook configuration, exception management stays at the same quality level indefinitely, regardless of how much data the platform accumulates.

## Questions to Ask Every Vendor

### For network visibility

- How many of the carrier integrations listed in your documentation are pre-built versus requiring custom work? What is the typical integration timeline for each category?
- What is the update frequency for each carrier type in my specific network? Where in my carrier mix will I have EDI batch updates in place of API real-time data?
- How does the platform handle carriers that do not have accessible tracking APIs? How is that data captured and at what frequency?
- Is the status language presented to users a normalized taxonomy or are carrier-specific status codes displayed verbatim?

### For exception playbooks

- Can playbooks be configured per exception type, customer tier, carrier, or lane? Or is there a single generic alerting threshold for all exception types?
- For routine exceptions within defined parameters, can the platform execute the response automatically without dispatcher approval? What categories of response require human sign-off?
- After a playbook is triggered, is the exception tracked to resolution with a record of the response taken and the time to resolution? How is that data surfaced in the analytics layer?
- Describe the escalation workflow for an exception that the initial playbook response does not resolve within the defined timeframe.

### For analytics

- Does the analytics layer identify which active shipments are at risk before the exception occurs, or does it report on exceptions after they have been detected?
- Can analytics outputs be used to automatically adjust playbook triggers or carrier allocations, or does insight from analytics require manual configuration changes?
- What is the data retention period for exception and performance data, and can it be exported to external analytics or BI tools?

## What to Look for Beyond the Demo

The three questions that matter most in reference calls and technical evaluations:

### Data integration reality

Ask specifically: for an organization with your network complexity (number of carriers, WMS systems, node types), how long has the typical implementation taken to reach the network visibility coverage shown in the demo? What percentage of those carriers were pre-integrated versus required custom work?

The answer surfaces whether the demo represents a production-ready capability or an aspirational one that requires significant implementation effort to achieve.

A platform with 500 listed carrier integrations where 80% require 6-week custom projects is effectively a platform with 100 integrations and a 3-year integration backlog for a large enterprise network.

### Implementation and time to value

Control tower implementations that require full data integration before showing any value are high-risk investments.

Ask about the phased approach: what visibility is available in weeks 1 through 4 with partial integration, and what does the implementation roadmap look like to reach full network coverage?

A platform that can show meaningful value with the highest-priority carrier integrations first, while additional integrations are completed in parallel, has a materially different implementation risk profile from one that requires complete data integration before the platform is useful.

## How Locus’s Approach to Logistics Visibility Differs

Locus is the world’s first Decision-Intelligent, Agentic TMS. It provides the network visibility, exception management, and analytics that logistics control towers are designed to deliver, with one architectural difference: the visibility layer in Locus is connected to the operational systems that can act on what it sees.

Traditional logistics [control tower platforms](https://locus.sh/control-tower-software/)
 are passive: they aggregate data, detect exceptions, and present information to human operators who then act.

The visibility layer and the execution layer are separate systems, connected by a human decision and a manual action. In Locus, a unified real-time visibility layer within Locus’s agentic TMS feeds directly into the eight AI agents that coordinate the delivery operation.

When the visibility layer detects a carrier capacity failure, the Carrier Agent evaluates alternative carriers, the Dispatch Agent evaluates the impact on active route plans, and the Customer Agent prepares the customer notification, all without a dispatcher initiating each step.

### Decision intelligence as an alternative to passive visibility

For last-mile and all-mile logistics operations, [DispatchIQ](https://locus.sh/dispatch-management-software/)
 provides the dispatch and carrier management layer that connects exception detection to exception resolution.

Mycroft AI Co-Pilot, Locus’s natural-language dispatcher interface, surfaces the same exception context that a control tower would present, alongside the evaluated response options and their trade-offs, in one view. The dispatcher reviews recommendations and approves or modifies them; the agents execute.

[ShipFlex](https://locus.sh/ship-flex/)
 provides the carrier network breadth that network visibility requires, covering 160+ active carriers from a broader network of 1,000+ pre-integrated partners.

Carrier performance data from ShipFlex feeds the analytics layer: on-time performance by carrier, lane, and time period is available without a separate analytics integration because the data is generated by the same platform that manages the carrier relationship.

For [last-mile delivery visibility](https://locus.sh/last-mile-delivery-software/)
 specifically, the last-mile leg that traditional control towers lose visibility on at carrier handoff, Locus provides live route-level tracking through the Fireworks Routing Engine and Driver Companion App. The visibility does not end at the carrier handoff; it continues through stop completion and delivery confirmation at the customer level.

Locus has been recognized in Gartner research on last-mile delivery and supply chain execution technologies for seven consecutive years, including in the 2026 Hype Cycle for Supply Chain Execution and Logistics Technologies and the 2025 Market Guide for Last-Mile Delivery Technology Solutions.

In October 2025, Ingka Investments, the investment arm of Ingka Group, acquired Locus, providing long-term institutional backing to a platform that continues to operate independently.

[https://locus.sh/route-optimization/route-optimization-software/](https://locus.sh/route-optimization/route-optimization-software/)

The unified real-time visibility layer within Locus’s agentic TMS connects exception detection directly to the Dispatch Agent, Carrier Agent, and Customer Agent, enabling automated response for routine exceptions and presenting evaluated recommendations to dispatchers for complex ones

## Conclusion

The logistics control tower market is broad enough that two platforms with the same label can have fundamentally different capabilities.

A tracking dashboard and a decision intelligence platform are both sold as control towers. The evaluation framework in this guide, built around network visibility quality, exception playbook sophistication, and analytics depth, is designed to reveal which category a specific platform occupies before the purchase decision is made.

The most important questions in the evaluation are the ones answered by reference calls with similar organizations, by a detailed integration timeline and carrier coverage assessment, and by a clear explanation of what value is available at each stage of implementation.

[Schedule a demo](https://locus.sh/schedule-demo/)
 to see how a unified real-time visibility layer connected to active exception management and decision intelligence works as an alternative to passive control tower architecture.

---

## Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the difference between a logistics control tower and a TMS?

A [TMS (transportation management system)](https://locus.sh/what-is-a-transportation-management-system/)
 manages the freight lifecycle: carrier contracting, rate management, shipment planning, and freight settlement. Its primary orientation is toward transportation procurement and financial management. A logistics control tower focuses on visibility and exception management across an already-planned and in-transit network: it aggregates status data from carriers and nodes, detects deviations from plan, and manages the response workflow. Some platforms combine both functions. Evaluating them separately clarifies which capability gap you are actually trying to close.

How do exception playbooks reduce manual dispatcher workload?

Exception playbooks reduce manual workload by defining the response workflow for each exception type in advance, so the dispatcher does not have to decide how to respond to each exception as it arrives. For routine exceptions that fall within defined parameters, the playbook can execute the response automatically: notify the customer, book an alternative carrier, or re-route the shipment. The dispatcher’s attention is directed to the exceptions that fall outside defined parameters and genuinely require human judgment. Without playbooks, every exception triggers the same manual triage sequence regardless of severity or available standard response.

What data sources should a logistics control tower connect to?

The minimum useful data set for network visibility includes: carrier tracking APIs for all active carriers, EDI feeds where APIs are unavailable, warehouse management system inventory and throughput data, customs and border processing status for international shipments, and last-mile carrier tracking for the final delivery leg. Each data source adds visibility into a specific part of the network; gaps in coverage create blind spots where exceptions cannot be detected until they surface as customer complaints. The practical constraint is integration effort: connecting all these sources takes time, and the implementation should be sequenced by the value of each data source relative to the integration cost.

How do you measure ROI from a logistics control tower?

ROI from a logistics control tower comes from four sources: SLA penalty avoidance (fewer breaches because exceptions are caught and resolved before the SLA window closes), carrier cost reduction (better carrier selection through performance analytics and more competitive tendering), inventory carrying cost reduction (faster exception resolution reduces the time inventory is held in transit or at interim nodes), and labor cost reduction (automated exception response reduces the dispatcher hours spent on manual triage). Measure the baseline for each metric before implementation and track them quarterly afterward. The SLA penalty and carrier cost metrics typically show the earliest measurable impact.

How does Locus provide network visibility and exception management without a traditional control tower architecture?

A unified real-time visibility layer within Locus’s agentic TMS aggregates delivery status from owned fleet, contracted carriers, and carrier networks into one operational view. When the visibility layer detects an exception, it feeds the signal to Locus’s eight specialized AI agents, which evaluate available responses based on current carrier capacity, active route plans, SLA commitments, and customer communication requirements. Mycroft AI Co-Pilot presents the evaluated options to dispatchers as recommendations with trade-off context, and the relevant agents execute the selected response. ShipFlex provides carrier performance data from 160+ active carriers that feeds the analytics layer without a separate integration.

MEET THE AUTHOR

Team Locus

Written by the Locus Solutions Team—logistics technology experts helping enterprise fleets scale with confidence and precision.

### Related Tags:

[https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-field-service-dispatch-software/](https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-field-service-dispatch-software/)
#### [General](https://locus.sh/blogs/category/general/)

## [How to Choose Field Service Dispatch Software: Technician Scheduling, Routing, and On-Site Proof](https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-field-service-dispatch-software/)

[Team Locus](https://locus.sh/blogs/author/team-locus/)

Sep 14, 2026

Evaluate field service dispatch software across three pillars: technician scheduling, routing, and on-site proof. Questions to ask every vendor included.

[Read more](https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-field-service-dispatch-software/)

[https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-returns-management-software/](https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-returns-management-software/)
#### [General](https://locus.sh/blogs/category/general/)

## [How to Choose Returns Management Software: Reverse Logistics, Refunds, and Pickup Scheduling](https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-returns-management-software/)

[Team Locus](https://locus.sh/blogs/author/team-locus/)

Sep 14, 2026

Evaluate returns management software across three pillars: reverse logistics, refunds, and pickup scheduling. Includes vendor questions and red flags.

[Read more](https://locus.sh/blogs/how-to-choose-returns-management-software/)

## How to Choose Logistics Control Tower Software: Network Visibility, Exception Playbooks, and Analytics

- Share
- [Print](javascript:window.print())
- [Download](#)
- [Schedule a Demo](https://locus.sh/schedule-demo/)

### Is your team spending more time on fixing logistics plan than running the operation?

- Agentic transportation management from order intake to freight settlement
- Route optimization built on 250+ real-world constraints
- AI-driven dispatch with automatic execution handling

20%Cost Reduction

66%Faster Planning Cycles

[Schedule a demo](/schedule-demo/)

Insights Worth Your Time

#### [General](https://locus.sh/blogs/category/general/)

## [Locus 2026 UK Consumer Survey: Why Returns Visibility is Now the Conversion Engine for AI-Driven Shopping in UK Retail](https://locus.sh/blogs/returns-visibility-conversion-engine-ai-shopping-uk-retail-locus-q2-2026-consumer-survey/)

[Aseem Sinha](https://locus.sh/blogs/author/aseem_locus/)

May 29, 2026

#### [General](https://locus.sh/blogs/category/general/)

## [Locus 2026 US Consumer Survey: Generative AI isn’t Just Changing How Consumers Shop, it’s Breaking the Demand Patterns US Retail Was Built On](https://locus.sh/blogs/generative-ai-shopping-effect-retail-fulfillment-operations-locus-q2-2026-consumer-survey/)

[Ishan Bhattacharya](https://locus.sh/blogs/author/ishan_locus/)

May 29, 2026

#### [General](https://locus.sh/blogs/category/general/)

## [Embedded vs Bolted-On AI: The Architecture Question European Logistics Buyers Are Asking](https://locus.sh/blogs/embedded-vs-bolted-on-ai-european-logistics-platform-architecture-business-benefits/)

[Aseem Sinha](https://locus.sh/blogs/author/aseem_locus/)

May 21, 2026

#### [General](https://locus.sh/blogs/category/general/)

## [Hybrid Fleet Management: How Owned, 3PL, Gig, ICE, and EV Capacity Actually Operate at Most Enterprises](https://locus.sh/blogs/three-workforce-fleet-reality-owned-3pl-gig-drivers/)

[Aseem Sinha](https://locus.sh/blogs/author/aseem_locus/)

May 7, 2026

#### [General](https://locus.sh/blogs/category/general/)

## [US Returns Hit $850 Billion in 2025: Why US Retailers Are Restructuring Reverse Logistics in 2026](https://locus.sh/blogs/850-billion-us-returns-ai-routing-reverse-logistics-2026/)

[Ishan Bhattacharya](https://locus.sh/blogs/author/ishan_locus/)

May 7, 2026