Two audited GM 6T cross-number cases
This article covers only two audited cases. It is not a census of Russian-language catalogs and it does not claim to show how cross-number claims are “usually” handled. The value is that the two cases produce different outcomes at different evidence levels.
Case 1: 24231607 / 210450 — the relationship did not close
In E609, a supplier places 24231607 and 210450 together, while independent professional catalogs support 24231607 as a 6T30 pump/stator seal and are silent on 210450. The publishable result is non-closure. Co-occurrence cannot be upgraded into equivalence, replacement, or an OE cross-reference.
Case 2: 24230682 → 24260763 — a dealer-level replacement claim
E610 has a different structure: multiple independent GM dealer/catalog sites consistently show 24260763 with a Replaces: 24230682 field. That is stronger than co-occurrence because a directed predicate is printed. The source level is still dealer/catalog, so it would be wrong to write “GM officially confirmed 24230682 was replaced by 24260763.”
The 24230682 / 24230715 pair also has separate side evidence in E304 / E305 [industry] SUPPORT_ONLY and E306 [low-grade marketplace conflict]. Those records do not disappear because a Replaces field exists. For left/right, use the owner page 24230682 vs 24230715; for replacement method, see how to verify GM supersession.
Why these cases should not be merged into one rule
E609 is a targeted audit whose relationship did not close. E610 is a concrete directed dealer-level claim. Calling both simply “cross numbers” would discard the information a buyer actually needs: which predicate was printed and at what source grade.
These two cases are therefore examples of verification discipline, not statistics. Source limitations are explained in why one supplier catalogue cannot verify a part number. For a specific number, send VIN/RPO, market, and the source claim URL through the RFQ instead of selecting from one label.
FAQ
- Is this an audit of all Russian catalogs?
- No. It contains exactly two audited cases.
- Are 24231607 and 210450 confirmed equivalents?
- No. E609 records a relationship that remains unclosed.
- Did GM officially confirm 24230682 → 24260763?
- No. E610 is a dealer/catalog replacement claim, not GM-public supersession.
- Can a dealer relationship claim be used as an ordering instruction?
- No. The relation still needs application/VIN/RPO and market context.