Abstract: China's 2024 to 2026 reforms connected the listed-company sustainability report to ordinary securities disclosure without settling what follows when a statement in it proves false. The article separates two questions. Whether a statement is securities disclosure is a classification question, fixed by channel; how much follows is a consequence question, fixed by statement type, materiality, causation and remedy. For classification it defends its own four-part typology, absent from existing Chinese legal texts. A statement that appears in or independently triggers a conventional disclosure file has full securities-disclosure status. A statement in a mandatory Shanghai or Shenzhen sustainability report, a board-approved reporting object that CSRC Order No. 226 now recognizes, has integrated sustainability-disclosure status. A statement in a voluntary exchange report has voluntary exchange-channel status, binding the issuer to truthfulness once published. Everything else is an off-channel ESG statement, governed by other law. Until a public chain from statement to evidence, correction and consequence becomes visible, counterparties will keep rebuilding it privately, through audit rights, data covenants and assurance demands.