01
Identity consistency
Vehicle, controller, HW/SW and file context are checked for conflicts instead of relying on the filename.
Verification request route
Check ECU file context before a workshop commits to the next step.
A file name or file size cannot prove that an ECU read is correct or original. A useful review combines the source file with exact controller identity, read method, vehicle context and the reason the workshop needs verification.
When this route fits
Start with evidence, not assumptions.
The workshop is unsure whether a file is original, complete or associated with the stated controller.
HW/SW, calibration or read-method context needs to be checked before another service request.
A replacement, previous modification or uncertain file history needs to be documented.
The workshop wants a review record without exposing the file on a public page.
Required request context
What the workshop should prepare.
- 1Vehicle, engine, model year and ECU supplier or family
- 2HW, SW, calibration or OEM identifiers when available
- 3The file to be reviewed, submitted only through the authenticated portal
- 4Explicit read method, tool context and whether the read is full, partial or virtual when known
- 5Known file history, previous work, replacement history and current fault codes
- 6A precise question: originality, identity, read coverage, software version or request readiness
Technical review gates
Three checks keep the request precise.
02
Read coverage
The stated read method and available metadata are considered before the file is treated as a usable source.
03
History and uncertainty
Known prior modifications, replacement history and missing evidence stay visible rather than being silently assumed away.
Secure workflow
From workshop brief to tracked request.
- Step 1
State the question
Describe exactly what needs checking and why the file history is uncertain.
- Step 2
Submit securely
Attach the file and controller context only through the authenticated request flow.
- Step 3
Review evidence
MG AutoTech reviews the available identity, source and read-method evidence without relying on one weak signal.
- Step 4
Keep the result attached
Customer-visible findings and next steps remain connected to the private request.
Questions before submission
Service-specific answers.
Can a filename prove that an ECU file is original?
No. Filenames are useful labels, not proof. Controller identity, read method, file context and known history should be reviewed together.
Can file size identify an ECU file by itself?
No. Different controllers or read types can share the same size. File size is only one supporting signal.
Does the public file-check page read my file?
No. This page explains the preparation route. Any file is submitted only inside the protected customer request flow.
Will a file check automatically approve another service?
No. The result can clarify the next step, but service compatibility remains dependent on the exact request and available evidence.
Published by MG AutoTech
Related workshop routes
Updated 2026-07-31. Public guidance only; secure handling remains account-based.