Actions Can Be Taught, Criteria Cannot: The Gap Between Identification Methods and Determination Basis

I. An Overlooked Gap in the Industry

Identification methods for agarwood are never in short supply. How to read a photo, how to trace grain from an image, whether fragrance lingers overnight, how heavy a bracelet feels in the hand—these have a very low barrier to entry, can be learned in one viewing, and are genuinely useful.

The problem lies between method and conclusion. Methods serve to rule out what is obviously wrong; conclusions determine whether something is genuine—and the latter is not contained in these actions.

This gap is rarely written about directly. Today we lay it out.

II. What Counts as an Action and What Counts as a Criterion

Actions share three characteristics: they are repeatable, self-verifiable, and require no external documents. Taking photos, reading images, and smelling fragrance all fall at this level.

Criteria are different. Criteria must rest on a verifiable document—the clauses and scope of application of a standard, or a report issued by a testing institution. They are not decided by any seller, nor by anyone who teaches methods.

The boundary between the two levels is not difficulty but effect. If this level is unclear, no amount of detailed teaching only makes the sieve finer.

III. Three Common Scenarios and What to Check in Each

The first: surfaces made to look like raw material.

Flaws in this category mostly show in appearance: unnatural color transitions, mismatch between cross-section and surface, exposure when lighting changes. What should be checked is the range in which extract content falls—a term in the grading standard, corresponding to words such as raw wood and agarwood wood.

The second: densification after compression.

Weight and volume not matching is the most direct flaw in this category—a bracelet of the same size feels noticeably heavier, and color near the bead holes is darker. What should still be checked is extract content, only this item must be compared against a specific batch.

The third: imitations compounded from fragrance materials.

The flaw lies in the relationship between scent and body temperature and distance; scent that follows hand warmth and changes with distance is mostly problematic. What matters most here is not finding flaws but checking the scope of application: the current grading standard's applicable object is agarwood raw material and its raw-state agarwood products; compounded and pressed products are not covered.

Not being covered does not mean it is fake, but it means this standard cannot give a conclusion about it—this distinction must not be blurred.

IV. How to Check the Original Standard Text

The current grading standard is numbered LY/T 3223—2020, an industry standard, administered by the National Forestry and Grassland Administration, with the National Technical Committee for Wood Standardization as the technical committee. It was issued on December 29, 2020, implemented on June 1, 2021, filing number 80021-2021, and is currently in force and not abolished.

The original text of the scope of application reads: applicable to the quality grade classification of agarwood raw material and its raw-state agarwood products.

The most important limitation in this original text is “raw material and its raw-state agarwood products.” Whenever this standard is to be used to draw a conclusion about something, first place that thing within this scope of application; if it cannot be placed within it, change the basis—do not force it.

V. Who Issues the Conclusion

We work on standards and testing-related matters; our position is to provide criteria, not to characterize anything on anyone's behalf. Determination of authenticity belongs to testing institutions; only reports issued by institutions have that effect. This is the industry's division of labor, not a courtesy.

What we can provide is this: the number, issue date, implementation date, filing number, current status, and original scope of application, as well as which clause a given term in the standard corresponds to, what can be checked, and what cannot.

VI. A Reminder for the Industry

Identification methods will become more widespread, and method videos will become more numerous—this is a good thing. But the more widespread the methods, the higher the probability that the criteria level is skipped—because methods can be made into videos, while criteria can only be checked in documents.

For consumers: when given a conclusion, ask one more question—“What clause is this conclusion based on?” For practitioners: laying out the basis is worth more than making the method look pretty.

Methods can be taught; criteria cannot. But criteria can be checked—if they cannot be found, it is only because no one has checked yet.