Can you tell a discovered check from an ordinary check just by reading notation?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws and is regression-tested against the official 110-diagram repetition casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it against the engine before publishing.
Direct answer
No, not from the move text alone. A notated move such as H4-6 says which piece moved and where it went, nothing about why it happened to result in check. Whether the moved piece itself gives the check, or a completely different piece behind it does, is invisible in the notation and only becomes clear once you follow the actual position.
Why this is consistent with the rest of the system
Xiangqi notation records mechanics, not outcomes, the same reason it marks no captures and no checks at all, discussed in how captures are written. A discovered check is simply one more outcome the base notation leaves for the reader to work out from the position, rather than flagging directly.
How a reader actually figures it out
By replaying the position up to that move and checking which pieces have a line to the general afterward. If the moved piece itself does not attack the general, the check must be coming from something it uncovered, which is the definition of a discovered check.
Related questions
Do annotated books ever flag discovered checks specifically?
Some do, in prose commentary alongside the move, though there is no standard symbol built into the notation itself for it.
Is this the same issue as notation not marking check at all?
Related, neither an ordinary check nor a discovered one gets any symbol in the base notation; both have to be read from the position.
.