This note adds no new facts. It sets the files named in Q4 (the 18 August 2014 Monochrom purchase proof and the 4 September 2019 “not acknowledgeable” letter on order 1058152) 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 Q4 asks
On the twelve-questions page, Q4 asks what would have made the 18 August 2014 Monochrom purchase proof acknowledgeable. The question does not invent a new document; it asks HQ to say, in writing, what proof or authorised-dealer verification would have been enough. As of this date Q4 is still listed as open.
Q1–Q12 · Q1–Q12 unanswered · Q3, Q4 and Q7 side by side
2. The 18 August 2014 proof already on this archive
This archive already publishes the purchase-proof stills labelled EX07 and EX08, dated 18 August 2014, for the M Monochrom. They remain on the exhibits gallery and the inbox stills page. Q4 takes those files as the starting point and asks what, on HQ’s own test, would have made them acknowledgeable.
Exhibits · Inbox stills · Questions page gallery
3. The 4 September 2019 “not acknowledgeable” line
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. That is the gate Q4 asks to have spelled out.
Journal 2019-09-04 · Not-acknowledgeable landing · 2026-09-25 note · Order 1058152
4. The neighbouring contrast, without treating it as today’s answer
A separate record on this archive states that Schmidt Marketing (Hong Kong) Ltd, as regional distributor, told consumers the CCD carried lifetime / high-quality assurance. Q3 asks how that path sits beside the “not acknowledgeable” line. Q4 is the practical follow-up: if the 18 August 2014 proof was not acknowledgeable, what would have been?
Schmidt landing · Journal 2019-09-16 · 2026-09-21 Schmidt note · Q3 still open
5. Where Q4 sits beside neighbouring open items
Q3 asks how two paths were offered for the same kind of claim. Q7 asks why the return route was Europe-only, not Hong Kong. Q4 stays on the document test itself: a dated written account of what would have made the 18 August 2014 Monochrom proof acknowledgeable.
Q3 still open · Q7 Europe-only return · Two paths for one receipt
6. What a short answer to Q4 would look like
A short numbered reply would do: what proof HQ now says was missing on 4 September 2019; what authorised-dealer verification would have counted; and whether the 18 August 2014 stills already on this archive meet that test. Auto-acknowledgements and ticket numbers are not that reply. A company letter dated 2 October 2026 is on file; the consumer disputes its closure of the matter.
Auto-replies ≠ answers · 2026-10-03 update · Q1–Q12 unanswered
Open line as of 2026-11-08: 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