Why we will not claim universal compatibility

The claim is structurally false

Some lock platforms use credentials configured at the factory with cryptographic keys held only by the vendor. On those systems a blank from any third party will not enrol, regardless of matching the frequency, the chip family or anything else on a datasheet. That is not a quality problem to be engineered around; it is a deliberate design decision by the lock manufacturer. Any supplier claiming to work with everything is either unaware of this or is hoping the question does not come up before the invoice does.

What it costs the buyer

A property that believes the claim orders bands, waits for production, takes delivery and then discovers at installation that nothing enrols. The bands are unusable, the season has started, and the supplier's position is that the property did not specify correctly. Nobody in that chain behaved illegally. The buyer simply relied on a sentence that was written to close a sale rather than to describe reality.

What we say instead

We ask for three facts — the make and model of the lock, the credential technology it reads, and the encoding scheme it expects, including whether your team enrols credentials or the vendor supplies them configured. With all three we give a written answer, and where that answer is no, we give it before an order rather than after one. A clear no delivered early is worth more to a property than an optimistic yes delivered late, even though it is worth considerably less to us.

And then we test it anyway

Paper compatibility and a working door are different claims. Antenna geometry, reader recess depth and mounting position all affect whether a specific band reads well on a specific lock, and none of that appears in any specification. So a small sample set goes to the property first and is presented to a real door by whoever maintains the locks. That step costs days and removes the only failure in this category that cannot be fixed afterwards.