RecordLens

Claim review. Safety

Partly supported

A material part is supported, but the published wording goes beyond the record.

Kobe Steel said in 2018 that its safety verification had found no cases requiring immediate suspension of use or recall of customers' products.

no cases that would require the immediate suspension of use or immediate recall
About
Kobe Steel, Ltd.
Claim made by
Kobe Steel, Ltd., company statement
Published
18 May 2018
Original
FAQs
Evidence score
53 How it was scored
Last reviewed
25 October 2026

Why this label

The company reports verification work that supports part of the claim. Its March 2018 report shows safety verification completed for 520 of the 525 customers announced in October 2017 and 129 of 163 customers found laterS2. Within that work it reports no case requiring immediate suspension or recallS3. The verification was incomplete when the statement was madeS2. The checks were done by the company and its customers, and no regulator finding on product safety was read here. The record supports the company's account of its own checks, not a general conclusion that all affected products were safe.

Current procedural position

Company statement updated on 18 May 2018S3. No regulator safety finding read.

Record supporting the assessment

no cases that would require the immediate suspension of use or immediate recall of customers' products
S3 Tier B Kobe Steel, Ltd., FAQs, Updated 18 May 2018

Conflicting or limiting record

have also completed safety verification for some of these cases
S2 Tier B Kobe Steel, Ltd., Report on the Kobe Steel Group’s misconduct, 6 March 2018

Evidence score: 53 of 100

The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of Kobe Steel, Ltd.. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.

ComponentPointsMaxReason
Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition?1330The evidence is the company's own account of its checks.
DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts?1520The FAQ states the finding directly.
CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point?415No independent safety record was read.
Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes?515Safety verification was still open for some customers in 2018.
CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments?710No later safety finding was found in a 2025 and 2026 search.
ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment?910Both pages are public.
Total53100

Timeline

  1. Company reports safety verification progressS1
  2. Report shows verification status by customer groupS2
  3. FAQ updated with the no recall statementS3

Revision history

  • Assessment first published with label Partly supported.

Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.

Sources

  1. S3Tier B FAQsKobe Steel, Ltd.. Company statement. Updated 18 May 2018.Company answers on safety verification. It is the company's own assessment.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
  2. S2Tier B Report on the Kobe Steel Group’s misconductKobe Steel, Ltd.. Commissioned report. 6 March 2018.Company report drawing on the Independent Investigation Committee's work. It does not state how long the misconduct lasted.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
  3. S1Tier B Timeline of Key EventsKobe Steel, Ltd.. Company statement. As of 11 April 2018.Company timeline from June 2016 to March 2018, including the 8 October 2017 disclosure. It does not cover the prosecution or US matters.Link working, checked 25 October 2026

Other claims about Kobe Steel, Ltd.