Why are manufacturers allowed to lie like that? It should be a law that the lowest range should be the one adverstised as "the range". Just like the Walkie Talkies with a range for 35 km I bought at Walmart and real maximum range is only about 10 city blocks.
The lowest range should be the one advertised as "the range" - doesn't work. By analogy ... the worst fuel economy should be the one advertised as "the fuel economy" - it is the SAME situation. Problem is, the worst fuel economy for all combustion-engine vehicles - ALL of them - is ZERO. Fill up the tank, start the engine, walk away, leave it sit until the tank is empty. That's the worst possible fuel economy. Zero. Problem is ... stating that the worst possible fuel economy (or the shortest possible range) is zero, isn't relevant to real world use.
There are standards for testing fuel consumption of combustion-engine vehicles ... the same standards are available (and are used, by major manufacturers) for testing electrical consumption of electric vehicles.
Major manufacturers, such as Kawasaki, are going to explain the circumstances under which the stated range is achieved. "when following test procedure whatever-it-is" or some such. Minor players (e.g. Sondor) ... possibly not so much. They could be prone to exaggeration.
Just as with combustion-engine fuel consumption ... your results may vary. Your usage probably doesn't match that test procedure. If you ride wide-open everywhere, it's going to be worse. If you ride "normal", or "average", probably it's realistic. If you try to eke out the best possible range in order to beat the stated claims, you probably can.
My Chevy Bolt is the same way. GM claims 400 km range. In "normal" driving, in "average" conditions, that's quite realistic. In the depths of winter, it's somewhat less than that. Drive like a bat out of hell, you can certainly get it to be less than that. In optimum spring and fall conditions, driven sensibly, it can pretty easily do more. Annual average ... It's about right.