Six GSXT entry points returned six different status patterns

Before treating an empty result as evidence

Confirm the entry point and client first. The measurements below show why that step belongs before any decision about the supplier.

Root paths were tested from one mainland host on 15 August 2026, using a Chrome user-agent string. The file has three status cells per entry. For the alternate entry, its notes distinguish GET 412 from HEAD 405. That row mixes methods. No company search was run, no record was retrieved, and redirects were not followed.

Earlier context: the separate 8 August eight-host panel records its own clients, controls and dates. The table below contains this study's observations.

Six official doors into one system, and no two behaved the same way. Three of the six returned something a monitoring script would classify as failure. One returned success, one returned a redirect, and one returned a status that usually means the resource does not exist.

The provincial door answers

The Shandong entry returned 200 in all three status cells. The national front page returned 521. These were script requests; neither result proves that a company search would work.

A 200 at the root does not show whether the records are complete or the same as those at another entry. We did not search for a company or test deeper paths.

Name the URL, client, method and date when reporting a failed check. One entry does not stand for the whole registry.

How a control host exposed our wrong conclusion

Earlier the same day we recorded that one of our control hosts had returned 403 where a previous run recorded 200. We wrote that down as the host drifting between dates. That was wrong, and this measurement is what caught it.

The file records three bare requests with 403 and three browser-UA requests with 200 for the market-regulator control. Its notes describe a later repeat with five of five bare requests at 403 and five of five browser-UA requests at 200. Those five repeats are in the notes, not separate data columns. The changed client makes a date-only claim unsound.

Keep each control result with its client and date. The control can show that one host answered that request. It cannot rule out a route problem at the target or prove why the target responded.

The central-government control returned 200 for both tested profiles in this session. That is a dated result; it does not promise the same response on a later run.

Why this matters if you are buying from China

Two practical consequences, both about how to read someone else's claim.

When a tool or a vendor tells you an official source is unavailable, the useful question is which entry point they tried and with what client. On this evidence, the honest answer to “can it be reached?” ranges from 200 to 521 depending on the door. A check pointed at a single one is not measuring the system.

When a supplier check comes back empty, the same caution applies in the other direction. A nil result that came through a door returning 404 or 400 tells you about the door, not about the company.

Self-service reports use a licensed Chinese business-information platform. A scoped L3 check adds a person reading named official sources. Each report states its source, query date and limits. See the current report scope and dated sample.

Start with the exact Chinese name and 18-character code. Check the code structure and check digit offline → This can flag a mistyped code; a valid code does not prove registration. If you need a record read, review the current report scope → The order states the source and delivery window.

Related: five client profiles against the national front page · the original challenge measurement · the eight-source availability panel · how to search the registry once you are in.

Six doors, and what is on the other side of any of them

This separate provider run queried 19 dimensions for 45 selected company codes on 21–22 August 2026. We chose codes with one search result. That did not prove identity. These returned categories do not verify what any official entry point would show.

Read each returned record for its date, entity match and limits. A category hit does not establish that the record is complete or current.

Correction: the earlier zero-sanctions label was wrong. The retained administrative-penalty query has nine hits. The abnormal-operations and serious-illegality queries each returned zero hits; neither is an all-clear. See the provider-count correction and limits and the sample selection.

Citing this

Archived copies, each with its own DOI, resolving independently of this site: Zenodo · Harvard Dataverse.

Quote or reproduce these results freely, including commercially, provided you keep the date (15 August 2026), the vantage (one cloud host inside mainland China), the client profile (a scripted client sending a browser user-agent string) and the stated limits travel with them. On this page the client profile is not a footnote. It is the finding.

Currawong, “Six GSXT entry points returned six different status patterns”, three-round root-path observations from one mainland Chinese host with same-session controls, 15 August 2026. https://currawongweb.com/verify/which-gsxt-address-works/

BibTeX

@dataset{currawong_china_registry_entry_points_2026,
  author    = {Bao L. Zhou},
  title     = {{China company registry entry-point matrix: six official doors, three rounds each}},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.22004818},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22004818}
}

Machine-readable evidence, every door and round: the observation table (CSV, CC BY). It carries the entry point, its tier, the client profile, the per-round status codes and the two-profile control rows. The page states the finding, the file lets you check it.

If you re-run this from another network or date and see something different, 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 connectivity observations on root paths. It is not legal advice, it is not a statement about any company, it is not a route around any access control. It is not a claim about what data any entry point exposes.