What all four have in common is that they are specification and documentation failures rather than fraud in any dramatic sense. They happen where a buyer accepted an adjective in place of a number, or accepted a document that described a product line rather than the batch in the box. So the entire way this site is written is an attempt to remove the adjectives: binder ratio as a percentage, mesh as a number, transport class against the stated dangerous-goods threshold, burn time in hours, and a batch number on every certificate that you can check against the container it arrived in.
That approach cuts both ways, which is the point. A supplier who publishes numbers can be held to them, and a supplier who publishes only adjectives cannot be. We would rather be checkable than flattering — including where the honest answer is unhelpful. We do not issue a chromatogram with every bottle of oil, because a profile only means anything if it was run on the lot you are buying and independent analysis costs real money. We will not describe plantation material as wild on a permit application. We will not run a stick blend below 18% binder because it breaks in the box, whatever the target cost.
And we are deliberately narrow. Six lines and the hardware that sells them, rather than a catalogue covering everything the genus produces. Chips, carvings, bracelets and seedlings are real businesses. They are not ours, and a supplier claiming equal competence across all of them is claiming something implausible.