Methodology

How we verify supplier claims

A verification report should show how each conclusion was reached—and where the evidence runs out.

Start with the actual product, then identify the records that apply.

What we examine

Different questions require different records. Read the checks below; these describe the method, not a completed supplier case.

Supplier claim

What we check: Names, links, certificates, models and stated addresses exactly as submitted.
Why it matters: Small spelling, entity and model differences can change the result.
Source type: Buyer and supplier materials
Possible result: Starting point—not a conclusion

Company registry

What we check: Chinese legal name, unified social credit code, status, establishment date and registered address.
Why it matters: A trading name or English name may not identify the legal counterparty.
Source type: Official Chinese company records
Possible result: Verified / unable to verify / discrepancy

Certificate record

What we check: Whether a record exists, its status, holder, issuer and available details.
Why it matters: A certificate image can be altered, expired or associated with another company.
Source type: Official or issuer-controlled certificate databases
Possible result: Verified / unable to verify / discrepancy

Holder relationship

What we check: Whether certificate holder, supplier entity and claimed factory are the same or clearly related.
Why it matters: A genuine certificate does not automatically belong to the company offering the product.
Source type: Cross-record comparison
Possible result: Relationship supported / unresolved / mismatch

Model scope

What we check: Whether the quoted product model appears within the available certificate scope.
Why it matters: A certificate may cover only specific models, variants or ratings.
Source type: Certificate schedules and product records
Possible result: Covered / not located / excluded

Cross-check

What we check: Names, dates, addresses and model details aligned across all located records.
Why it matters: Contradictions often appear only when sources are placed side by side.
Source type: Evidence matrix
Possible result: Consistent / unresolved / discrepancy

Evidence report

What we check: Each conclusion paired with source, query date, evidence and limitation.
Why it matters: The buyer should be able to understand and challenge the reasoning.
Source type: ZimonAI analysis
Possible result: Verified / unable to verify / discrepancy found

Three results, not a black-box score

Verified — located evidence supports the specific statement reviewed.
Unable to verify — accessible sources do not support a responsible conclusion.
Discrepancy found — the supplier claim and located record conflict in a material field.

Sources are selected by the claim—not by what is easiest to screenshot.

Supplier documents and third-party sources can provide leads or context. They are labelled according to evidential weight and are never silently upgraded into proof.

Company identity

Official Chinese enterprise and credit records

Legal existence and status do not guarantee performance.

Chinese certification

CNCA, accreditation or issuer-controlled records

Availability and public detail differ by scheme.

Product listing

UL Product iQ or another issuer-controlled product system

A listed certificate may cover only named models and ratings.

Market claim

FCC, EU NANDO, Japanese or other official sources

Used only when relevant to the submitted market claim.

A conclusion you can question

For each agreed question, the memo records the supplier claim, applicable question, source and date, located record, cross-check, finding, effect on this transaction, limitation and next evidence. An unavailable record is not proof that the claim is false.

Supplier claim: The exact statement or document field under review.
Applicable question: What this buyer needs to decide about this purchase.
Source: Which system or document was checked, and on what date.
Record: The actual entry or document field located in that source.
Cross-check: How entity, date, model and relevant document versions compare.
Finding: A match, material discrepancy, missing material or point not yet verifiable.
Transaction implication: Why this result matters to the proposed agreement or payment.
Limit: What the available record cannot establish.
Next evidence: Which document, record or person could resolve the remaining point.

Have a supplier claim you need checked?

Send the supplier, proposed product and buying decision. We will define what can be reviewed and which scope fits.

Discuss a supplier