Why do you not find those sources convincing? Yeah nobody is explicitly making the statement "sorry, I messed up" but if I put the facts together then that's still what happened, in my opinion.

I think you dismiss LinkedIn way too quickly. Hedda Sasburg is a business development consultant specialized in trade with China. I think this counts as expertise w.r.t. what Chinese different products and standards are. Why do you dismiss it so easily?

And okay, how about this then: https://nos.nl/artikel/2329316-afgekeurde-mondkapjes-waren-w...

From the article:

> Maar "de Chinese kwaliteitsstandaard KN95 van de mondmaskers is een medische code", zegt een woordvoerder van de IGJ.

> But "the Chinese standard KN95 means that it's for medical use", said the Dutch ministery of health.

Hedda Sasburg (and not sure why the article doesn't point this out):

> Ik lees dat het KN95 [aka GB2626] mondmaskers zijn; maskers die in China niet zijn bestemd voor medisch gebruik in ziekenhuizen.

> KN95 masks [aka GB2626] are not for medical use.

Note: the Chinese KN95 is not equivalent to the American N95.

Also from the article:

> "De producten stonden beschreven als 'niet-medische maskers' in de douanepapieren"

> The customs paper said that these are non-medical masks.

Even if you don't believe Hedda Sasburg and the Chinese statements, the customs paper seems pretty definitive to me.

The only loose end I still see is why IGJ ruled KN95 to be equivalent to the European EN-149:2001+A1:2009 when even the Chinese don't use them for medical purposes.

Anyway, the issue is now solved. China now sent masks that the Dutch do approve of: https://twitter.com/mjrijn/status/1246154161152045056