mechanism · 2026-06, China, six test codes · verdict: CONFIRMED — METHODS RULING
Registered claim: an effective tariff rate computed by summing the published schedule’s applicable China measures cannot be reconciled with the collected receipts on the same codes by any constant correction — across six test codes spanning 301-only, 301+2025 and heavily-excluded goods, the ratio collected ÷ schedule-sum spreads more than 2x.
The same four stickers, summing to 75% on paper, collected 46.0% on sweaters and 10.0% on toys. Lithium-ion batteries carry a naive stack of 642.5% and collected 34.4%. The ratio of collected to schedule-sum ran from 0.64 (cars) down to 0.05 (batteries) — an 11.8x spread, where a fixable arithmetic would need a constant. Exclusions, effective dates, and scope lists published as PDF annexes are the whole difference, and none of them are in the addable part of the schedule. This is why every “effective tariff rate” computed from the rulebook is a different number from every other — and why this instrument publishes receipts.
| China, 2026-06 | schedule, summed | collected | ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cars (1.5–3L) | 82.5% | 52.5% | 0.64 |
| Sweaters & pullovers | 75% | 46.0% | 0.61 |
| Upholstered seats | 75% | 41.1% | 0.55 |
| Laptops | 75% | 15.4% | 0.21 |
| Toys | 75% | 10.0% | 0.13 |
| Li-ion batteries | 642.5% | 34.4% | 0.05 |
Registered falsifier: a single scalar mapping schedule sums onto collected rates within ±5 points on all six codes. Best case fails by >25 points. Not met.
This study is a frozen artifact: the ruling and its exhibits do not change when new data lands. If the verdict is ever revised, the revision is printed here with its reason, and the original stays on the record.
← all studies · sources: TT-008 port ledger · method & rules