Yes, we do.No we don't.
Until we have imagery of the quality similar to what I posted in 4694 above, or if there are credible individuals on the Chinese grapevine directly stating that a given airframe or aircraft type (whether it's a specific J-15B airframe or the type as a whole), at best we can say that we have imagery of a J-15B which possibly might have shorter nozzles than a standard Al-31 but where the effect of artefact or imagery angle cannot be ruled out in producing it.
Unless you still plan on insisting that these are somehow AL-31s, which across all J-15 airframes have nozzles that extend beyond the horizontal stabs from most angles:
And not WS-10s which clearly do not:
(w/ newer nozzles)
w/ older nozzles, (which you still can see that they don't extend beyond the stabs):
Or somehow they would just shorten the AL-31 nozzles with no apparent logical explanation even though all the J-15s and J-15Bs that precede it don't, I don't see why the engine in Fig. 1 wouldn't be or shouldn't be said as WS-10s.
I'm saying that people need to be very judicious and cautious about associating "J-15B" and "WS-10" together, especially outside of this forum.
Even in this forum, there are a whole bunch of things that can be posted and speculated on, on the basis of incomplete indicators, for the purposes of discussion or interest. I have a half dozen topics myself with similar extents of circumstantial indicators that have been posted before in various places that can easily spawn a case of "XYZ may be the case" but I'm choosing to actively not talk about it
That's because being judicious about what is actually discussed and exercising the obligation to stfu is actually quite important, because it means readers of this forum without the discipline or experience to not circulate things, won't run off away with discussions they've seen here.
If something is unconfirmed, especially for a topic that is "significant" (such as a fighter previously using foreign engines potentially using a domestic engine), then standards for confirmation should be high, and if confirmation does not meet standards then there is an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that unintentional misinformation doesn't occur.
In a more ideal world, sure. But realistically, some people still won't. Especially not people outside this forum, let's be honest here.
So, I don't see the point be in denying evidence which although admittedly is not the clearest of all pictures, is apparent enough to identify that they are indeed not AL-31s and most likely WS-10s.