This note adds no new facts. It sets the two paths named in Q3 (alleged Schmidt Marketing (Hong Kong) Ltd lifetime CCD assurance vs Wetzlar’s “not acknowledgeable” purchase-proof line) side by side, using pages already on this archive. For the short word list see the glossary; for the sequence see the timeline.
1. What Q3 asks
On the twelve-questions page, Q3 asks how HQ’s “not acknowledgeable” course sits beside the alleged Schmidt Marketing (Hong Kong) Ltd lifetime CCD coverage for M-System digital cameras. The question does not invent a new fact; it asks for a written reconciliation of two paths already on this archive. As of this date Q3 is still listed as open.
Q1–Q12 · Q1–Q12 unanswered · Q8 still open
2. Path 1 — Schmidt Marketing (Hong Kong) Ltd, alleged
The Schmidt landing and the 2019-09-16 journal capture record the Chinese-language thread 「徠卡香港虛假宣傳」. As set out there and in the 2026-09-21 update, the complainant’s 2019 letters state that Schmidt Marketing (Hong Kong) Ltd, as regional distributor, told consumers that the CCD for M-System digital cameras carried lifetime / high-quality assurance, and that hundreds of owners in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and mainland China received that notice. A brand reply quoting the Schmidt paragraph is on file. The distributor is named because the complainant authorised naming. A standalone flyer or poster from the distributor remains the highest-priority missing physical exhibit.
Schmidt landing · Journal 2019-09-16 · 2026-09-21 Schmidt note
3. Path 2 — Wetzlar: “not acknowledgeable”
The 2019-09-04 journal entry and the not-acknowledgeable page record a 4 September 2019 Customer Care letter for order 1058152 (Coletta thread): the invoice/receipt was “not acknowledgeable,” and the manufacturer guarantee applies only if an authorised dealer can be verified; otherwise claims go to the seller. The receipt stills stay published as EX07 and EX08. That line sits on the same file as the €1303 + VAT restatement of 6 September 2019.
Not acknowledgeable · Journal 2019-09-04 · 2026-09-25 update
4. Why the two paths do not sit easily together
If a regional distributor publicly offered lifetime CCD coverage, the complainant asks how a later HQ letter can treat the same kind of claim as a seller-only matter once the purchase proof is labelled “not acknowledgeable.” If HQ never authorised that regional message, the complainant asks for that denial in writing. Q4 asks the related question: what would have made the 18 August 2014 Monochrom proof acknowledgeable.
Q3 and Q4 · Side-by-side note · Promises table
5. The Europe-only return beside both paths
Q7 asks why a Europe-only return address was given, not Hong Kong — the market where the alleged Schmidt message circulated. The 2019-11-11 journal entry records that Europe-only return line on the same 1058152 file. Read with Q3, the archive still lacks a written HQ statement of the distributor relationship.
Journal 2019-11-11 · Europe-only return · Case 1058152
6. What a short answer to Q3 would look like
One dated paragraph would do: whether Schmidt Marketing (Hong Kong) Ltd was authorised to state lifetime CCD coverage; what “not acknowledgeable” meant for the 18 August 2014 Monochrom papers; and which of the two paths governs this file. The record compiled here holds auto-acknowledgements and ticket numbers, plus a company letter dated 2 October 2026 that the consumer disputes as a closure; none of these is a numbered reply to Q3.
Auto-replies ≠ answers · 2026-10-03 update · How the answer changed
Open line as of 2026-11-05: no numbered point-by-point written reply to Q1–Q12 is on file. A company letter dated 2 October 2026 is on file; the consumer disputes its closure of the matter (2026-10-03 update). Allegations and unanswered questions only, not a court finding.
CCD-Korrosion (DE) · M9 CCD corrosion (EN) · Wetzlar Customer Care · Public sources · Exhibits · 12 questions