Class A is latched in "security threats", but this threat is potential and contingent. The consumption warning of China Consumers Association, inadvertently, portrays the threat of A-level locks as immediate and inevitable. This way of discourse makes it easy for the public to have an urgent sense of anxiety, and then to make a "panic buying" move. It should be noted that the consumer psychology of the Chinese people generally has a tendency to stabilize rather than "being satisfied with it" and "preparing for it."

It is said that the "unsafe" Class A locks will be produced, put into the market and used in such a large area. This shows that the series of pre-screening of the functional management departments is almost ineffective. Or is it that the A-level lock is barely usable, and the B-level lock is a "better choice"? Perhaps replacing the Class A lock with a Class B lock is just an improved security upgrade. Surprisingly, in a popular argument, it is seen as something that must be done immediately. This deviation of consumption guidance is not conducive to maintaining the normal supply and demand order in the market.

When consumers are called to change for a B-level lock, what needs to be asked is, is the market ready? Is the pricing of Class B locks within a reasonable range? Is the supply of Class B locks sufficient and diverse? In the long run, the replacement of Class A locks with Class A locks is a general trend, but this process of change should be based on the consumer's spontaneous choice, rather than the demand blowout caused by panic buying locks. In fact, technological advancement and replacement of facilities will be a constant theme. In a wide range of “new and old”, producers and regulators should take more responsibility and not put too much pressure on the end consumers.