[board] Attack Shark X68 HE — dev_id unknown (VID:3151 PID:502D, GET_INFOR fails)

[riyaddl]

dev_id

unknown

Marketed model name

Attack Shark X68HE

Switch type

HE (Hall-effect)

Wireless

No — wired only

Evidence bundle

Attack Shark X68 HE (Hall-effect, wired USB)

## Hardware IDs (confirmed via Windows Device Manager)
USB\VID_3151&PID_502D  (composite device)
HID\VID_3151&PID_502D&MI_00  (keyboard interface)
HID\VID_3151&PID_502D&MI_01&COL01  (consumer control)
HID\VID_3151&PID_502D&MI_01&COL02  (system controller)
HID\VID_3151&PID_502D&MI_01&COL05  (vendor-defined device)

Note: PID 502D does not match the 5030 the flasher currently detects for.
Other known RY5088-family PIDs under the same VID 3151 include 5030 and 503A
(per echtzeit-solutions/monsgeek-akko-linux), suggesting per-SKU PID
assignment across the RongYuan lineup rather than a single fixed PID.

## What I tried
ry-flash.exe --detect --json

## Result
{"error":"no_device","message":"no GET_INFOR (keyboard in normal mode 3151:5030, app closed?)","ok":false}

Vendor driver/background app was closed before testing. Same result with
and without the official Attack Shark web driver active.

Anything else

What I can provide

• Willing to test candidate PID additions/profile changes against real hardware
• Can pull the official firmware update file from the Attack Shark web driver if
  a chip-ID string check against "AT32F405 8KMKB" would help confirm/deny RY5088
• Can open the case and report the MCU's physical top marking if useful

Question

Is 502D likely just an unlisted PID variant of the existing RY5088 protocol,
or does the GET_INFOR failure suggest genuinely different firmware handling
underneath the shared VID? Happy to help profile this board if it's the former.