Does 24266675 replace 24266190?

No direct relation field was captured in E642; the relationship remains unclosed.

What relationship is printed for 24266190?

E623/E634 print OPTIONAL W/24262294 in bounded applications.

What is known about 24266675?

Dealer/catalog sources relate it to 24230691 and 24256953; that is not GM-public supersession confirmation.

Does non-closure prove the parts are different?

No. E642 prevents turning an unlocated relationship into proof of different design or incompatibility.

24266190 vs 24266675 replacement: what the audit found

After a targeted audit, a direct replacement/supersession relationship between 24266190 and 24266675 remains unclosed. E642 did not capture a direct REPLACES, USE, REPLACED BY, SUPERSEDES, or INTERCHANGE field between those two numbers. That bounded non-closure is the publishable result — and nothing stronger.

What is actually printed for 24266190

E623 / E634 confirm exact 24266190 in bounded Gen3 6T40/MNK and 6T45/MNP contexts. Those rows print OPTIONAL W/24262294. That is a same-position co-option inside a concrete application: 24262294 is a parallel option, not evidence connecting 24266190 to 24266675.

What is actually printed for 24266675

At dealer/catalog level, E620 plus the targeted audit show Replaces 24230691, 24256953; an EPC context also prints OPTIONAL W/24256953. These claims cannot be promoted to GM-public supersession because the predecessor history is not exposed on a public GM source.

The two target numbers therefore have separate relationship fields, but the audit did not find a predicate joining 24266190 ↔ 24266675. This does not prove the parts are “definitely different designs,” “definitely used at different positions,” or “never interchangeable.”

For directed-relation method, see how to verify GM supersession and what CONFIRMED means. The mechanism explaining why one seal position can show several numbers is owned by the multiple-number article; we do not repeat its taxonomy here. 24230682 vs 24230715 remains the separate owner for side evidence.

Practical conclusion

This audit cannot be turned into “order 24266190” or “order 24266675.” A specific order still needs VIN/RPO, catalog market, and an application-specific row; send those through the RFQ.

FAQ

Does 24266675 replace 24266190?: No direct relation field was captured in E642; the relationship remains unclosed.
What relationship is printed for 24266190?: E623/E634 print OPTIONAL W/24262294 in bounded applications.
What is known about 24266675?: Dealer/catalog sources relate it to 24230691 and 24256953; that is not GM-public supersession confirmation.
Does non-closure prove the parts are different?: No. E642 prevents turning an unlocated relationship into proof of different design or incompatibility.

Related product records

These product records confirm technical identity and bounded fitment. Stock, price, MOQ and lead time require a separate commercial check.