📢 致12315市场监督管理部门及12325维权部门：关于戴尔(中国)有限公司涉嫌售后推诿、记录造假、逃避保修责任的正式投诉与证据提交

投诉人/消费者： 牛春国（ICT行业资深从业者，五十年工作经验）
被投诉企业： 戴尔(中国)有限公司 (Dell)
涉事设备： Vostro 成就 7510 笔记本，服务编号(Service Tag)：4X49PG3
投诉请求： 要求戴尔公司就保修期内维修记录前后矛盾的造假行为给予正式书面说明，提供带时间戳的真实维修证据，依法承担因质量缺陷或隐性故障造成的维修费用，并对推诿、误导消费者的行为予以整改。

一、核心诉求与事实还原

1. 请求监管部门介入调查戴尔售后"造假"行为

本人电脑在保内发生相同故障三次（无故黑屏无法开机）。戴尔在不同阶段给出的解释严重矛盾：
✅ 2026年5月6日戴尔官方声称："保内并未实际维修，仅做释放静电处理，不属于硬件维修"；
❌ 2026年5月14日戴尔终审邮件却改口："保修期内曾更换主板并恢复正常使用"。
两个截然相反的结论出自同一厂商。作为普通消费者，我有完整邮件证据。戴尔电话解释为"时间较长记录不清"，此种托词无法成立。鉴于本人从事信息技术五十年，认为厂商明显为了规避"同一故障反复出现"的质保责任而伪造记录、捏造事实。请求市场监管部门责令戴尔提供带时间戳的真实维修工单与内部日志，解释哪一个说法为真实，谁在造假。

2. 三次相同故障，前两次维修均未根除，第三次自行更换主板后扩展屏闪黑消失，证明出厂即存缺陷

• 第一次故障（保修期内2022年7月）：黑屏无法开机，戴尔售后"释放静电"解决或更换主板（两者矛盾），但维修后接扩展屏开咖啡机时仍闪黑，该现象表明主板电源隔离/接地存在隐患。
• 第二次故障（2025年12月，过保）：相同黑屏，自费送修供货商，被告知内存插槽损坏，主板不良，未彻底修复，USB2.0失效。
• 第三次故障（2026年5月2日）：完全相同的黑屏不能开机，本人自费更换主板（第三方维修）后，长期存在的"开咖啡机扩展屏闪黑"现象彻底消失，有力证明该机出厂即存在主板电路缺陷/电源隔离问题，且保内维修从未真正解决。
戴尔终审竟称"不同阶段现象表现未呈现连续一致表现"，这是罔顾事实。现在要求戴尔提供差异证据并提供专业分析报告。

二、戴尔自我矛盾/造假核心证据对照表

📎 证据截图 - 戴尔"未维修"与"已更换主板"矛盾对照

三、戴尔终审意见及官方回避事实的表现

投诉人回应： 戴尔至今未提供任何客观证据说明"差异"在哪里，也未证明"放静电"与"换主板"哪个是真实操作。更关键的是，更换主板后扩展屏闪黑彻底消失，直接反驳了戴尔的诡辩。请监管部门责令戴尔披露真实维修记录（包括2022年的工单和操作日志）。

📄 完整终审邮件PDF：点击查阅戴尔终审邮件原文件

四、设备合法持有及保修信息

五、首次报修推诿留痕（保内推诿所有权证明，拒绝直接服务）

该行为违反《微型计算机商品修理更换退货责任规定》，厂商不得以非必要证明阻碍消费者享受保修服务。

六、过保后故障复现（第二次相同故障）

七、第三次故障及与戴尔关于"开咖啡机扩展屏闪黑"的关键沟通

八、对戴尔"差异论"的严正驳斥

戴尔称"不同阶段现象表现及处理存在差异，未呈现同一原因连续表现"。然而，本人提交的关键事实：
✔️ 第一次维修后故障形态一致（闪黑+黑屏死机）；
✔️ 第二次同样黑屏，内存插槽损坏；
✔️ 第三次更换主板（第三方更换）后，多年顽固的"开咖啡机扩展屏闪黑"完全消失；
这足以证明本质上是主板缺陷或电源隔离不良引发的同一致命故障。戴尔无法提供任何技术报告证明差异，反而用模糊话术搪塞，构成消费欺诈嫌疑。

依据《消费者权益保护法》第8条、第20条，经营者应当真实、全面提供信息，不得作虚假或引人误解的宣传。戴尔售后记录前后矛盾，侵害本人知情权与公平交易权。

九、其他不负责任服务体验列举

• 戴尔微信客服全程机器人套话，无实质性响应；
• 电话客服不输入服务编码直接挂断，门槛设置不合规；
• 首次保修刁难所有权证明，违反三包规定；
• 终审结论无视明显造假行为，强行要求消费者自费承担因保内未根治缺陷导致的维修费。

十、本人家庭用电环境及专业能力说明

为反驳戴尔"静电/环境"等不实指责，本人提供详实家庭网络及实验室环境证据。本人住宅配备完善接地系统、网络设备分层、精密仪器及工作站，绝非劣质用电环境。开咖啡机仅Dell 7510出现扩展屏闪黑，其他电脑无任何异常，足见戴尔产品设计或主板缺陷。

本人从事ICT行业五十年，对电磁兼容、静电防护、电源接地有丰富工程经验，戴尔售后所谓"静电释放解释"无法自圆其说，更换主板后故障彻底消除即是最有力反证。

十一、最终投诉请求（12315/12325）

• 请求1：依法责令戴尔公司就"放电非维修"与"更换主板维修"两份矛盾结论提供真实完整、不可篡改的维修记录（包括时间戳、备件出入库记录、工程师操作日志），认定其是否构成消费欺诈或提供虚假服务记录；
• 请求2：戴尔对本人第三次自费更换主板费用（因保内未能解决根本缺陷导致）予以全额赔偿或补偿，并承担相应检测费用；
• 请求3：戴尔对其推诿、拒绝提供一致服务记录、歪曲事实的行为公开道歉，并依据《消费者权益保护法》第五十五条承担惩罚性赔偿；
• 请求4：市场监管部门对戴尔售后记录管理及服务诚信问题开展行政约谈或调查，防止更多消费者遭遇类似数据篡改、推诿责任的情况。

十二、证据清单摘要（全部附件随函本文档内备查，邮件PDF文档除外）

• 证据1：2026年5月6日戴尔邮件声称"仅释放静电，不算硬件维修"截图（imp2.png）
• 证据2：2026年5月14日戴尔经理邮件声称"保内更换主板"截图（imp1.png）
• 证据3：戴尔终审回复2026年5月27日以前的完整邮件原文PDF文档（独立文件提交）
• 证据4：设备官网注册信息截图（imp4.png）
• 证据5：2022年保内推诿所有权证明邮件（imp3.png）
• 证据6：供货商维修记录及内存插槽损坏证据（cc.png）
• 证据7：本人与戴尔关于扩展屏闪黑多次沟通记录（heiping.png、heiping-r.png）
• 证据8：家庭网络环境、实验室照片，证明不存在异常静电或接地问题。更多细节参阅 我的网络网站信息。
• 证据9：更换主板后扩展屏闪黑消失事实陈述更多细节参阅 我的网络网站信息。

投诉人郑重声明： 以上陈述均有原始邮件、聊天记录、官网截图等为证，本人对真实性承担法律责任。戴尔作为国际知名企业，为规避保修义务不惜提供虚假维修记录，情节恶劣，恳请有关部门予以彻底调查，维护消费者基本权益。

📋 行政举报书（第二阶段）新增

本部分为第二阶段行政举报内容，于2026年7月27日提交12315平台，当前状态：已受理。

被举报人：戴尔（中国）有限公司
举报日期：2026年07月27日

一、举报背景

本人为案涉戴尔笔记本设备实际使用人。此前，本人就该设备质保售后争议通过全国12315平台提交消费投诉。

承办单位依据商家主张，认定设备为公司采购、非个人生活消费，依据《市场监督管理投诉举报处理暂行办法》相关规定，对本次民事消费投诉作出不予受理决定（2026年7月24日）。

现民事争议调解渠道已无法推进，本人剥离民事维权诉求，专门针对戴尔（中国）有限公司售后服务不规范、信息披露违规、档案管理不合规等企业经营违法违规线索，发起行政举报，请监管部门依法核查、依规处置。

二、涉嫌违规事实陈述（全部可由附件证据佐证）

案涉戴尔笔记本正常办公使用，保修期内多次反复出现同类故障。本人持续发起报修后，戴尔售后服务处置过程中出现多项不合规情形：

1. 同一设备、同一保内维修事件，戴尔官方出具两份完全矛盾的正式结论
   戴尔前期官方答复：本机保内仅进行静电释放操作，无任何硬件维修、无部件更换。
   戴尔后续正式邮件官方结论变更：本机保修期内完成主板更换硬件维修。
   两份官方正式结论相互冲突、无法并存，属于售后服务核查结论混乱、服务记录不严谨。
2. 无正当理由拒绝向设备使用人提供法定维修档案
   本人多次书面申请调取本机保内完整维修工单、备件更换记录、工程师操作日志等原始售后档案。戴尔（中国）统一以"系统升级、数据迁移"为由，拒不提供任何原始维修记录。
   [+] 戴尔官方社区专员Daniel V于2026年7月13日公开确认：其拥有旧系统权限，查阅首次保修工单后确认更换了主板。该事实直接证明"系统升级无法查档"的说法不真实。
3. 境内外售后信息披露标准不一致、解释虚假存疑
   本人通过戴尔全球英文官方渠道核验同一设备，境外后台可正常查询、调取本机完整维修记录。
   由此证明：戴尔（中国）"系统升级无法查档"的理由不真实，存在境内外售后数据披露双标、刻意隐瞒维修档案的嫌疑。
4. 售后刻意回避核心质询、推诿甩锅、拒绝正面答复
   多轮书面、电话沟通过程中，戴尔售后工作人员刻意回避本次两大核心争议，频繁拉扯无关信息转移讨论焦点；当本人追问维修记录矛盾、原始工单调取事宜时，既不正面回应疑点，还将责任推给代理商，全程未给出合法、合理的正式解释。

前述全部服务违规疑点，配套两类证据材料：附件1为专项核心证据，与四项违规事实逐一对应佐证；附件2为全过程全套辅助备查资料。在上一轮消费投诉流程中相关线索未得到任何核查与回应，全套证据可随时配合监管核验。

三、举报请求

1. 依法核查戴尔（中国）有限公司售后服务档案留存、查询、公示管理制度的落地执行合规性；
2. 核查涉案设备保内维修结论前后冲突、无故拒绝提供原始维修档案的服务违规事实；
3. 对查实的售后服务不规范、信息披露不合规问题，依法开展核查、行政约谈，督促企业整改纠错；
4. 将本次举报的核查进展、认定结论及最终处理结果，正式书面反馈举报人。

四、附件清单（共3份）

附件1 核心对应证据（逐条匹配四项违规事实，主定案证据）
附件2 全套全过程辅助备查资料（深度复核备用）
附件3 设备权属及授权委托书

举报人：牛春国
邮箱：niuchunguo@hotmail.com
联系电话：13901041002
通讯地址：北京市海淀区永定路52号107楼9单元503号

日期：2026年07月

补充备案声明

本文书及全部附件资料仅用于行政举报证据留存、供监管部门核查使用。本人本次举报不以索要经济赔偿为首要目的，主要针对企业前后表述矛盾、拒不提供维修档案等不规范售后行为进行反映，希望督促企业规范售后服务、正视使用人的合理问询。所有事实陈述均为客观记录，企业行为最终定性以市场监督管理部门官方调查结论为准。

📢 Formal Complaint Letter to 12315 Market Supervision Administration & 12325 Consumer Protection Hotline

Complainant/Consumer: Niu Chunguo (Senior ICT industry practitioner with 50 years of industry experience)
Respondent Enterprise: Dell (China) Co., Ltd.
Affected Device: Vostro 7510 Laptop, Service Tag: 4X49PG3
Complaint Demands: Order Dell to issue an official written statement addressing its contradictory, potentially falsified in-warranty repair records; provide authentic repair evidence with time stamps; lawfully bear all maintenance fees incurred due to factory hardware defects and latent malfunctions; and rectify its conduct of misleading and evading the consumer.

I. Core Claims & Factual Recount

1. Request Regulatory Authorities to Investigate Dell's Alleged Record Falsification

My laptop suffered the identical malfunction (sudden black screen, failure to boot) three times while covered under warranty. Dell issued two drastically conflicting official statements at different stages:

• May 6, 2026: Dell officially stated: "No actual hardware repair was performed during the warranty period; only static discharge troubleshooting was carried out, which does not qualify as hardware maintenance."
• May 14, 2026: Dell's final adjudication email reversed its stance: "The motherboard was replaced under warranty, and the device resumed normal operation after service."

These two diametrically opposed statements originate from the same manufacturer. I retain complete email evidence for both communications. Dell's verbal excuse that "records are unclear due to elapsed time" is untenable. Drawing on my 50 years of experience in information technology, I allege the manufacturer deliberately falsified records and fabricated facts to avoid warranty obligations for repeated identical failures. I request the market supervision authority to compel Dell to produce authentic, time-stamped work orders and internal service logs, clarify which statement is truthful, and identify the source of record falsification.

2. Three Recurrences of the Identical Fault; Failures Never Resolved During Warranty. Post Third-Party Motherboard Replacement, Screen Flickering Issues Eliminated, Proving Factory Hardware Defect

1. First Malfunction (Within Warranty, July 2022): Device blacked out and failed to boot. Dell after-sales either claimed static discharge resolution or motherboard replacement (two contradictory accounts). Post-service, the extended display still flickered black when a coffee machine was powered on—indicating hidden flaws in the motherboard's power isolation and grounding circuits.
2. Second Malfunction (Post-Warranty, December 2025): Identical black screen failure. I paid out-of-pocket to send the unit to the original supplier for repair, who diagnosed damaged memory slots and faulty motherboard components. The repair failed to fully resolve the issue, and the USB 2.0 ports remained non-functional afterward.
3. Third Malfunction (May 2, 2026): Exact same black screen boot failure. After I paid a third-party technician to replace the motherboard, the long-standing extended display black flicker triggered by powering the coffee machine vanished entirely. This definitive proof confirms the laptop shipped with inherent motherboard circuit and power isolation defects that Dell's in-warranty service never fully remediated.

Dell's final ruling claimed "the fault manifestations at each stage did not reflect consistent root causes," a statement that disregards verifiable facts. I demand Dell submit supporting evidence and a professional technical analysis report to substantiate this claim.

II. Comparison Table of Dell's Self-Contradictory / Allegedly Falsified Official Records

Attached Evidence Screenshots: Contradictory Dell Claims of "No Repair" vs. "Motherboard Replacement"

III. Dell's Final Ruling & Its Deliberate Evasion of Material Facts

Complainant's Rebuttal: Dell has never provided objective evidence to substantiate its claimed "differences" nor proven whether static discharge or motherboard replacement was the actual service performed. Most critically, the complete elimination of extended display flicker after third-party motherboard replacement directly invalidates Dell's evasive technical argument. I request regulatory authorities to compel Dell to disclose full authentic service records, including 2022 work orders and technician operation logs.

📄 Full Final Ruling Email PDF: Click to View Dell Final Ruling Email Original Document

IV. Device Ownership & Warranty Eligibility Documentation

V. Initial Warranty Service Delaying Tactics (Proof of Warranty Evasion Through Excessive Documentation Demands)

This conduct violates the Regulations on Liability for Repair, Replacement and Return of Microcomputer Products, which prohibits manufacturers from imposing unnecessary documentation burdens to obstruct consumers' statutory warranty rights.

VI. Post-Warranty Recurrence of Identical Fault (Second Malfunction)

VII. Third Malfunction & Key Correspondence Regarding Extended Display Flicker Triggered by Coffee Machine Power Draw

VIII. Formal Rebuttal to Dell's "Divergent Fault Manifestations" Argument

Dell asserts that "fault manifestations and resolution methods differed across incidents, with no consistent single root cause." The following verifiable facts directly refute this claim:

• The identical fault pattern (extended display flicker + full black screen shutdown) persisted after the first in-warranty service attempt;
• The second malfunction reproduced the same black screen failure, with diagnostic results confirming damaged memory slots tied to motherboard defects;
• Third-party motherboard replacement permanently eliminated the years-long extended display flicker triggered by coffee machine power cycling.

This evidence collectively proves all three incidents stem from a single factory defect in the motherboard power isolation and grounding circuitry. Dell has failed to produce any technical report to validate its claim of divergent root causes, relying solely on vague evasive language—constituting potential consumer fraud under Chinese consumer protection laws.

Pursuant to Articles 8 and 20 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law, business operators must provide truthful, comprehensive information to consumers and are prohibited from issuing false or misleading representations. Dell's internally contradictory after-sales service records violate my right to know and right to fair trade.

IX. Additional Unprofessional & Negligent After-Sales Service Incidents

1. Dell WeChat customer service relied entirely on automated template responses with no substantive resolution support;
2. Phone support agents disconnected calls without first entering the device service tag, imposing unreasonable access barriers to service;
3. Excessive ownership documentation demands during the first warranty claim, violating national three-guarantee regulations;
4. Final adjudication ignored clear evidence of record inconsistency and wrongfully required me to bear all repair costs stemming from unresolved factory defects identified during the warranty period.

X. Household Power Environment & Complainant Professional Qualifications (Refuting Dell's Unsubstantiated "Static / Poor Environment" Allegations)

To counter Dell's baseless claims that static electricity or poor electrical conditions caused the fault, I submit full documentation of my residential network and laboratory testing environments. My residence features fully compliant grounding infrastructure, layered network equipment, precision testing instruments, and dedicated workstations—eliminating the possibility of substandard electrical conditions. Only the Dell 7510 exhibits extended display flicker when powering the coffee machine; all other brand laptops operate flawlessly under identical conditions, conclusively pointing to a design or motherboard hardware defect exclusive to Dell's product.

Attached Materials:

• Residential network topology diagrams (jiatingwangluo2.png)
• On-site photos of home network rack hardware
• Laboratory testing environment photographs

With 50 years of professional ICT experience specializing in electromagnetic compatibility, static mitigation, and power grounding engineering, I can confirm Dell's "static discharge" explanation is technically unsustainable. The permanent elimination of all screen flicker symptoms after motherboard replacement serves as definitive technical proof of the factory hardware defect.

XI. Final Formal Demands Submitted to 12315 & 12325 Authorities

1. Mandate Dell to submit complete, unalterable authentic service records with verifiable time stamps, spare parts inventory logs, and technician operation logs to reconcile its conflicting statements of "static discharge only" and "in-warranty motherboard replacement"; conduct an official determination as to whether Dell issued false service records constituting consumer fraud.
2. Order Dell to fully reimburse all out-of-pocket third-party motherboard replacement and diagnostic fees incurred as a direct result of unresolved factory defects during the original warranty coverage period.
3. Require Dell to issue a public written apology for its obstructive service practices, refusal to reconcile contradictory service records, and factual misrepresentation; impose punitive damages pursuant to Article 55 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law.
4. Direct market supervision authorities to launch administrative interviews and formal investigations into Dell's flawed after-sales record management and unethical customer service practices, to prevent similar incidents of record tampering and warranty evasion affecting other consumers.

XII. Summary of Attached Evidence (All Exhibits Included with This Letter; Separate PDF for Final Ruling Email)

1. Exhibit 1: May 6, 2026 Dell email screenshot (imp2.png) confirming only static discharge, no hardware repair
2. Exhibit 2: May 14, 2026 Dell manager email screenshot (imp1.png) confirming in-warranty motherboard replacement
3. Exhibit 3: Standalone full PDF of Dell's May 27, 2026 final adjudication email and all prior correspondence
4. Exhibit 4: Dell official website device registration screenshot (imp4.png)
5. Exhibit 5: July 2022 email screenshot (imp3.png) documenting excessive ownership verification demands during warranty service
6. Exhibit 6: Supplier repair chat logs (cc.png) confirming damaged memory slots and motherboard defects post-warranty
7. Exhibit 7: Full chat logs between complainant and Dell regarding persistent extended display flicker (heiping.png, heiping-r.png)
8. Exhibit 8: Residential network and laboratory environment photographs proving compliant electrical grounding and no abnormal static buildup; extended technical details available at My Network Website
9. Exhibit 9: Factual statement confirming complete elimination of screen flicker post third-party motherboard replacement; full supporting details available at My Rights Protection Website

Complainant's Formal Sworn Statement

All factual claims contained within this letter are supported by original email correspondence, chat logs, official website screenshots, and physical evidence. I accept full legal liability for the authenticity of all submitted materials. As an internationally recognized enterprise, Dell's deliberate falsification of service records to evade statutory warranty obligations constitutes severe misconduct. I earnestly request relevant regulatory authorities to conduct a full thorough investigation to safeguard basic consumer legal rights and interests.

Supplementary Note

In accordance with the Interim Measures for Handling Market Supervision Complaints and Reports issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation, I request the authorities organize an administrative mediation hearing and compel Dell to submit a verifiable professional technical analysis report. Dell's final adjudication disregards clear contradictory documentary evidence and constitutes unfair exploitation of corporate bargaining power against individual consumers. I expect the 12315 platform to intervene and supervise Dell's fulfillment of all statutory consumer service obligations.

Complainant: Niu Chunguo
Date: May 27, 2026
Contact Information: Confidential via official complaint platform
Attachments: All embedded screenshots and referenced original email documents listed above

📋 Administrative Complaint (Phase 2) NEW

This section contains the Phase 2 Administrative Complaint submitted to 12315 on July 27, 2026. Current status: Formally accepted.

Respondent: Dell (China) Co., Ltd.
Complaint Date: July 27, 2026

I. Complaint Background

I am the actual user of the Dell laptop in question. Previously, I submitted a consumer complaint regarding this device's warranty and after-sales dispute through the national 12315 platform.

The market supervision authority, based on the merchant's claim that the device is a corporate procurement asset rather than for personal consumer use, issued a non-acceptance decision on the civil consumer complaint pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Interim Measures for Handling Market Supervision Complaints and Reports (July 24, 2026).

Now that the civil mediation channel has been exhausted, I am separating civil rights claims from this matter and initiating an administrative complaint specifically targeting Dell (China) Co., Ltd.'s non-compliant after-sales service practices, information disclosure violations, and record management irregularities. I request regulatory authorities to investigate and take appropriate action.

II. Statement of Alleged Violations (All Corroborated by Attached Evidence)

The Dell laptop in question was used for normal office work. Multiple identical failures occurred during the warranty period. After I repeatedly initiated repair requests, Dell's after-sales service exhibited multiple irregularities:

1. Two completely contradictory official conclusions for the same device and same in-warranty repair event
   Dell's earlier official response: Only electrostatic discharge was performed during the warranty period, no hardware repair, no parts replaced.
   Dell's subsequent official email changed the conclusion: Motherboard replacement was completed during the warranty period.
   These two official conclusions are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist, constituting chaotic after-sales service verification and unprofessional service record-keeping.
2. Unjustified refusal to provide statutory repair records to the device user
   I have made multiple written requests to access complete in-warranty repair work orders, parts replacement records, technician operation logs, and other original after-sales archives. Dell (China) uniformly cited "system upgrades and data migration" as reasons for refusing to provide any original repair records.
   [+] On July 13, 2026, Dell official community liaison DELL-Daniel V publicly confirmed: he has access to the legacy system and, after reviewing the first warranty work order notes, confirmed that the motherboard was replaced. This fact directly proves that the "system upgrade prevented record retrieval" explanation is untrue.
3. Inconsistent domestic and international after-sales information disclosure standards; questionable false explanation
   Through Dell's global English-language official channels, I verified that overseas back-end systems can normally query and retrieve complete repair records for this device.
   This proves that Dell (China)'s "system upgrade prevented record retrieval" explanation is untrue, revealing dual standards in domestic and international after-sales data disclosure and deliberate concealment of repair records.
4. After-sales deliberately evaded core inquiries, shifted blame, and refused to provide substantive responses
   During multiple rounds of written and telephone communications, Dell after-sales staff deliberately avoided the two core disputes, frequently distracted the discussion with irrelevant information, and when I pressed for clarification on the contradictory repair records and access to original work orders, neither responded directly to the issues nor provided a legitimate and reasonable formal explanation, instead shifting responsibility to dealers.

The foregoing service violation issues are supported by two categories of evidence: Attachment 1 is targeted core evidence, corresponding to each of the four violation facts; Attachment 2 is complete supporting documentation for comprehensive review and verification. These leads were not investigated or responded to during the previous consumer complaint process. All evidence is ready for regulatory review and verification at any time.

III. Complaint Requests

1. Verify the compliance of Dell (China) Co., Ltd.'s after-sales service record retention, query, and disclosure management systems;
2. Investigate the service violations regarding conflicting in-warranty repair conclusions and unjustified refusal to provide original repair records for the device in question;
3. Based on confirmed after-sales service irregularities and information disclosure violations, conduct formal reviews and administrative interviews, and urge the enterprise to implement corrective measures;
4. Provide the complainant with a formal written response regarding the investigation progress, findings, and final disposition of this complaint.

IV. Attachment List (3 items)

Attachment 1: Core Evidence (mapped to each of the four violation facts, primary case evidence)
Attachment 2: Complete Supporting Documentation (for comprehensive review and cross-verification)
Attachment 3: Device Ownership and Authorization Letter

Complainant: Niu Chunguo
Email: niuchunguo@hotmail.com
Phone: +86 13901041002
Address: Room 503, Building 107, No. 52 Yongding Road, Haidian District, Beijing

Date: July 2026

Supplementary Filing Statement

This document and all attachments are submitted solely for the purpose of administrative complaint evidence preservation and regulatory review. The primary objective of this complaint is not to seek economic compensation, but to bring attention to the enterprise's contradictory statements and refusal to provide repair records, with the aim of urging the enterprise to standardize after-sales services and address legitimate user inquiries. All factual statements are objective records. The final determination of the enterprise's conduct shall be based on the official investigation conclusions of the market supervision authority.