Import-export scope wording: missing in 67 of 264 records.

The numbers

1. Import-export wording was absent in 67 records

The source returned no 进出口 wording for 67 of 264 names. That does not tell us whether the company serves only domestic customers or uses an affiliate to export. China ended foreign-trade operator filing on 30 December 2022. That notice concerns one filing requirement; it does not establish a supplier’s current export permissions or fulfilment ability.

2. More than half have been renamed

A former name is a lead for comparing an old document with the current record. This frame does not measure how often buyers receive old names. Use the legal-name chain to compare the Chinese name, company code and dated deal documents.

3. Paid-in capital lags subscribed capital in 37% of records

97 of 262 (37.0%) records with both paid-in (实缴) and subscribed (认缴) capital showed a gap. Two of the 264 lacked a paired value and are excluded from this denominator. The figures alone do not establish solvency, a missed deadline or why a gap exists. Read the contribution terms and dates; subscribed capital is not a bank balance.

4. Manufacturing and trading words often appeared together

Both types of wording appeared in 248 of 264 records (93.9%). A trading word alone therefore does not separate the two roles in this frame. We did not inspect factories or test a factory classifier. The factory-or-trader guide explains how to use wording as a follow-up lead; the free check reads pasted text in your browser.

5. The 264-of-264 active-status claim is withdrawn

Correction, 10 September 2026: we cannot substantiate the earlier claim that all 264 queries returned 存续 or 开业 (active) labels. That total is absent from the archived aggregate file, and we could not recover the source rows needed to check it. The current CSV marks this measure as withdrawn, with no numeric result. The scope, former-name and capital counts above still match the 12 archived aggregate measures; that match does not recreate the underlying company records.

Method and saved frame sources

The saved frame contains 264 names: Shandong 136, Anhui 113 and Yunnan 15. Collection notes identify them as excerpts of the sixth MIIT “Little Giant” list. The saved source list lacks the exact Shandong attachment; its third link is a registration regulation, not a company list. We could not retrieve the provincial originals in this review. Full list-to-name verification remains open. The figures below describe the saved frame, not all Chinese manufacturers.

• Saved links. The collection lists an Anhui PDF and a Yunnan PDF. We have not established that either was withdrawn. Failed access in this review does not show removal.
• Coverage. Each name in the saved frame was queried once on 8 August 2026 through a commercial registry-data API. No official portal was queried directly. Frame errors, name matching and source coverage remain possible.
• Counting. Scope flags match 进出口; 生产/制造/加工; and 批发/零售/销售 in the returned Chinese text. Former names and capital fields use the source’s returned values. The capital comparison requires both fields.
• Public data. The CSV contains headline aggregates. Company names and source rows are not public. Person-name fields were discarded at collection. Readers can check the published arithmetic but cannot reproduce each lookup from this download. See our editorial policy.

Source review: 10 September 2026. The MOFCOM filing notice was read; the provincial originals were not retrieved. The 12 shared aggregate measures match the Zenodo download. The local active-status claim is withdrawn above. The saved frame remains usable as a named collection; membership in the original provincial lists is not verified.

What these numbers do not say

• No national or marketplace estimate. The saved frame has three provincial excerpts. It does not measure all suppliers or compare them with marketplace sellers.
• No explanation for province differences. The excerpts have different sizes and company mixes. Their percentages do not establish a geographic cause.
• No export or factory verdict. Wording, returned status and a name on a list do not establish production capability, export permissions or a shipment history.
• No current company check. The results come from one channel on 8 August 2026. Use a fresh official record and the deal documents for a specific supplier.

What a buyer can check

1. Get the exact Chinese name and Unified Social Credit Code. Compare them with the current record and deal documents. The free code checker checks format. It cannot confirm that the code was issued to this entity.
2. Read the scope as wording. Ask for separate evidence of the factory, exporter and payee. The free check helps read pasted scope text.
3. Keep capital values, dates and contribution terms together. For a human record review, state the company and the question to be checked.

A second frame, measured later, and what it does and does not confirm

The first study counts scope wording in a saved 264-name frame. A later check, on 21–22 August 2026, asked whether customs credit records were returned for 45 selected company codes. Those codes came from the 106-name China-listed trailer frame. See the selection method.

These percentages answer different questions. The frames, fields and query dates differ. We did not measure an improvement or test what caused the gap. A NHTSA listing records a manufacturer filing; it does not prove a shipment reached the United States.

A returned customs credit record does not, by itself, prove completed export activity or identify the exporter for your order. Four of the 45 queries returned no such record. That result does not prove those companies lack records elsewhere, nor tell us where their products are used.

The saved 45-code query results support the displayed hit counts. Company-level results are not published here. Several pages use this same group for different field checks. A later frame measured the step before this one, whether a printed company name resolves to a registered entity at all.

Questions about this study

How common was import-export wording in this frame?

The source returned 进出口 wording for 197 of 264 names (74.6%) on 8 August 2026. It was absent in 67 (25.4%). These counts describe the saved frame and do not establish export permissions or activity.

How many records had former names?

141 of 264 records (53.4%) had at least one former name; 60 (22.7%) had two or more. Compare dated names and the company code for your own supplier. The study does not measure how often buyers receive an old name.

What is the denominator for the capital comparison?

262 of 264 records had both capital fields. Of those 262, 97 (37.0%) showed paid-in capital below subscribed capital. The gap alone does not establish solvency, a missed deadline or the reason for the difference.

Can I reproduce all company lookups from the CSV?

No. The public CSV holds headline aggregates rather than company-level rows. The saved frame contains 264 names, and full verification against the original provincial lists remains open. Read the source limits before quoting the figures.

Citing this study

Quote or reproduce these figures freely, including commercially. Keep the query date (8 August 2026), the saved frame (Shandong 136, Anhui 113 and Yunnan 15 names) and the stated limits travel with them. The numbers describe that frame on that date: nothing broader.

Archived copies, each with its own DOI, resolving independently of this site. They were deposited before the 10 September 2026 correction below and still carry the withdrawn active-status total; this page is the current version. Zenodo · Harvard Dataverse · figshare.

Machine-readable copy: the published aggregate figures as CSV: aggregate counts and shares, with the frame and query date on every row. The active-status row preserves the withdrawal reason instead of a numeric result. The DOI archives hold earlier versions; this correction does not change those files. No per-company records are published.

Currawong, “Import-export wording in Chinese manufacturer records: 1 in 4 had none”. Saved 264-name frame, queried 8 August 2026. Source-list verification remains open. https://currawongweb.com/verify/china-manufacturer-registration-study/ Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21858946

BibTeX

@dataset{currawong_verify_china_manufacturer_registration_study_2026,
  author    = {Bao L. Zhou},
  title     = {{Registration facts of 264 'Little Giant' manufacturers}},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.21858946},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21858946}
}

If you re-run this on another batch, another province or another date and get different numbers, we want to hear it. Corrections that survive checking get published here with attribution, including ones that contradict us.

Browse all measured studies and methods in the research index.

This page reports aggregate registration statistics. It is not legal advice, and it says nothing about any individual company’s honesty, capability or suitability.