This note adds no new facts. It reads the journal entry for 2026-09-22 already on this archive — why auto-replies stay in the archive — next to the blocked-correspondence record. That record states that on 16 September 2026 the complainant sent formal Letter A asking for point-by-point written answers to Q1–Q12 on service orders 1058152 / 1105973, and that Leica systems issued tickets SC00110029 / SC00110030 and automatic replies only.
The same pattern is already logged in earlier dated notes: Gmail “Message blocked” delivery notices for named @leica-camera.com addresses between 16 and 19 September (2026-09-19 update); follow-up promised but not delivered (2026-09-21 update); and further CRM auto tickets after the 23 September formal demand. A ticket number confirms that a message was received. It is not a numbered written answer.
Why the archive keeps them: the journal entry treats automatic replies as evidence of the communication pattern alleged, not as correspondence. That is also why the human-mail list leaves auto-replies out and shows only human letters. For fairness, a company reply dated 2 October 2026 is on file; the consumer disputes its closure of the matter and has asked for itemised accounting (2026-10-03 update). Where to write is unchanged: Customer Care, Am Leitz-Park 5, 35578 Wetzlar (journal 2026-09-26, Wetzlar Customer Care).
Open line as of 2026-10-19: /questions/ still lists Q1–Q12 with no numbered point-by-point written reply on file. Orders 1058152 / 1105973 stay on the payment-on-file record. Allegations and unanswered questions only, not a court finding.
Journal: 2026-09-22 auto-replies · Blocked correspondence · Message blocked · Promised reply not delivered · Formal demand · 2 October reply disputed · Human mail · Wetzlar Customer Care · Promises side-by-side · Public sources · 12 questions