It mentions that the QR strap mechanism was a CW patent, inferring a CW invention. Is this true?

There are a lot of the talking points that Mike France has used over the years and quite flowery language. Being a cynic, unfamiliar with the house style of the publication, and not being familiar with the writer's style I might suspect use of ChatGPT. There are too many errors for it to be a simple paid article but I could be wrong. Is CW a microbrand any more, not really. Yes, it could be paid but if so I hope they didn't pay much.

This is actually funny if you read it to yourself in a promo-like voice in your head. Well that it what happened to me anyway when I read it, it "sounded" like some sort of promotion for a trip to a tourist resort, a cure-all-for-all-ailments, or some sort of magical household appliance that cleans the floors AND cooks dinner.

I doubt if the article was paid for by CW although from the illustrations used and some of the content the author has been in contact with the press department. As 'SuperShony' is a regular contributor to microbrandwatchworld he/she has very likely been remunerated by the magazine. There are a few bloopers (like the statement about the logo being located at the nine position just under an illustration of the Twelve) but otherwise I reckon its been well written and if I wasn't already a CW watch owner (and having done my research ) the article would have piqued my interest sufficiently to take a look at the website. So, job's a good 'un SuperShony.