Xinxing Tools' successful IPO approval has left unresolved questions regarding the authenticity of signatures and company seals on its filing documents. The signatures of senior executives across multiple versions of the prospectus appear identical, suggesting potential violation of Article 36 of the Rules for the Registration of Initial Public Share Offerings.

The Shenzhen Stock Exchange records show that Xinxing Tools passed its listing committee review on March 31. The company's IPO sponsor is Huatai United Securities, with Shanghai Jin Tian Cheng Law Office serving as legal counsel.

Market researchers have identified concerning similarities in signature pages across three filing versions dated January 16, 2026, February 21, 2026, and March 24, 2024. The signatures of directors, senior management, and audit committee members show nearly identical handwriting characteristics, stroke structures, and positioning, differing only in dates. Under normal circumstances, handwritten signatures by the same person at different times would show minor variations. The complete consistency across all signatures suggests possible digital reproduction rather than authentic resigning.

The company seals on the documents also display remarkable similarity in style, angle, and clarity, with only handwritten dates differing. This pattern aligns with characteristics of electronic or copied seals, reinforcing suspicions about signature page replication.

Analysis using multiple AI identification tools produced varying conclusions. Baidu's system indicated it couldn't definitively determine whether signatures were made under identical conditions, while Alibaba's Qianwen tool concluded all signatures were authentic and seals came from the same physical stamp. Doubao's analysis found all signatures were identical reproductions from the same original, with seals being the same physical stamp showing normal variations in application.

The fundamental characteristic of handwritten signatures is their uniqueness and irreproducibility. Natural variations in stroke pressure, connection details, angle, and spacing should appear when the same person signs at different times. The complete consistency across documents filed months apart raises compliance concerns.

Article 36 of the Rules for the Registration of Initial Public Share Offerings requires that issuers and their directors, supervisors, and senior management must genuinely sign and seal the prospectus, ensuring its truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness. Article 52 of the parallel administration rules stipulates that if signatures or seals are forged or altered, regulators may terminate the review and prohibit reapplications for 36 months.

While electronic seals may be legitimately used for electronic submissions, with physical seals required for final meeting documents, the identical appearance of handwritten signatures across different versions and dates constitutes potential regulatory violation. Final determination would require examination of original documents by regulatory authorities or professional authentication institutions.