China’s success in meeting IP-related metrics highlights a broader challenge for comparative ranking systems: they often measure what is easiest to quantify—such as patent and trademark filings—rather than how IP systems actually function in practice. While China has shifted from quantity to “quality”-oriented indicators, these remain metric-driven and closely tied to national planning goals, including commercialization, industrial output, and global portfolio development. By contrast, indices like the U.S. Chamber’s International IP Index and the World Justice Project emphasize legal and institutional conditions, but may underweight how effectively private rights are enforced in real-world settings. A more balanced approach would focus on the operation of civil remedies, transparency across all forms of enforcement, treatment of foreign and domestic actors, the functioning of private licensing markets, and the system’s responsiveness to new technologies—areas that are harder to quantify but more indicative of a well-functioning IP system.