The story accurately reports on DHL Express's decision to suspend shipments over $800 to the U.S., citing U.S. customs regulatory changes as the reason. The article correctly states that the suspension is temporary and specifies the change in customs rules from $2,500 to $800 for formal entry processing. However, the story could benefit from more detailed information on the specific customs regulations and how they impact DHL's operations. Overall, the main claims are well-supported by facts, though the article lacks direct citations from official sources or documents that would further verify these claims.

The article presents the situation primarily from DHL's perspective, explaining the company's response to U.S. customs changes. It briefly mentions the broader context of trade tensions between the U.S. and China, which adds some balance. However, it lacks viewpoints from other stakeholders, such as U.S. customs officials or consumer advocacy groups, which could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation. The inclusion of Hongkong Post's reaction adds another perspective, but the article could be more balanced by exploring the implications for consumers and businesses affected by these changes.

The article is generally clear and concise, effectively conveying the main points about DHL's suspension of shipments. The language is straightforward, and the structure follows a logical flow, making it easy for readers to grasp the key information. However, the article could benefit from additional context or definitions, such as explaining what 'formal entry processing' entails, to enhance understanding for readers unfamiliar with customs procedures.

The article relies on statements from DHL and mentions actions by Hongkong Post, but it does not cite specific sources or documents, such as official announcements or regulatory texts. The lack of direct quotes or references to primary sources limits the ability to assess the credibility and reliability of the information. Including statements from U.S. customs officials or industry experts would enhance the source quality by providing authoritative insights and reducing potential bias.

The article provides basic context about the regulatory changes and DHL's response but lacks detailed explanations of the methodology behind the decision or the specific customs rules involved. The absence of explicit source attribution and a clear explanation of how the information was obtained affects transparency. Providing more background on the customs changes and their implications for international shipping would help readers understand the basis of the claims and the potential impact on stakeholders.