Nine thousand assertions
On this page11
The catalog carries a dedicated table of closure compatibility
55,902 rows, naming 1,119 container references and 764 closure references. Which is a substantial piece of data and it is the only place in the record where a container and a closure are asserted to go together.
It is keyed on the supplier’s stock number and not on ours
Joining it against our own catalog number returns nothing at all on either side. Joining against the supplier reference resolves every row, with no unmatched container and no unmatched closure.
A first pass on this page joined on the wrong column
And concluded the table was orphaned, which was wrong. It is recorded here because the failure mode is worth knowing: two SKU namespaces in one database, and an empty join that looks like missing data.
The table has a column for the basis of each assertion
And 55,888 of the 55,902 rows leave it empty. Fourteen rows record something.
All fourteen say the same kind of thing
Twelve read that the supplier states the same neck notation on both, at 43MM. Two read the same at 40MM. So the stated basis is a notation match in a third party’s record.
Which is not a statement that anybody fitted the two parts together
It is a statement that the supplier used one string to describe two things. That is a reasonable ground for believing they fit and it is not the same as having tried it.
And it is the same structure as the statute above
The Lacey Act makes an assertion about a United States transaction that is true because of something in another sovereign’s rule book. The fit table makes an assertion about compatibility that is true because of something in a supplier’s notation.
Both are legitimate and both have the same weakness
The assertion can only be as good as the thing it borrows from, and checking it means going to the other source. Neither can be verified from its own words.
So every page in this library states the basis for a fit claim
A closure recorded as fitting a container shares a neck notation in the supplier record. That is what the claim is, and no page here upgrades it to a test.
Fourteen stated reasons out of fifty five thousand nine hundred and two
Which is the finding, and it is not a criticism of the table. A basis column that is honest on fourteen rows and empty on the rest is better than one that invents a reason for all of them.