Agricultural Machinery Smart Farm Equipment Keyword Candidate Study

Comparative structure study

The largest recorded reporting jurisdiction, Zhejiang, contains 11 records (14.9% of this 74-record cohort). The remaining cohort contains 63 records. The comparison concerns archive composition.

The recorded industry label Advanced equipment accounts for 70.3% here (52/74), compared with 25.5% in the parent set (4,918/19,297), an absolute gap of 44.8 percentage points.

33/74 companies link to pages with existing source-supported excerpts (44.6% of the cohort). The other 41 records remain usable for archive composition, but do not support new operating case studies.

10 keyword candidates match only a company name, with no matching term in recorded products or sub-industry fields. Product evidence is needed before treating these as operating businesses in this segment.

An ID-deduplicated archive snapshot, not the whole market, current recognition or operating results.

The parent set, All public archive records, contains 19,297 records. This cohort contributes 74 (0.4%); 19,223 records remain after excluding it.

Ratio of label participation, not market share; multi-label counts overlap.

Excluding this cohort, the recorded industry label Advanced equipment covers 4,866/19,223 remaining records (25.3%), an absolute gap of 45.0 percentage points from this cohort.

The full reporting jurisdiction distribution has 22 labels; the top 3 contain 28/74 records (37.8%).Other known labels contain 46 records.

For 74 records with known labels, the effective category count is 13.2, versus 22 actual labels. Definitions and scope are in the methodology.

The table shows ten labels; 12 others are included in the calculations above.

Record counts do not rank supply capability or economic size.

The largest intersection, Jiangsu × Advanced equipment, contains 8 records, or 80.0% of the 10 records carrying the Jiangsu label.

A cell contains company IDs carrying both labels. It does not establish procurement, supply or investment relationships between firms. Multi-label cells may overlap.

This page displays 8 of the full cross-tab’s 35 non-empty cells; the other 27 remain in the analysis.

Non-empty fields are not necessarily accurate or supported by originals.

Counts concern existing reviewed bilingual excerpts, not re-certification of originals or entire reports.

A rule hit prioritises review; it does not establish that the entire field is wrong. One record can trigger several rules.

An ID may match several fields, so counts may exceed the cohort total. Matches establish search relevance only.

Among the translated non-broad query terms, “agricultural machinery” has the most matches: 49/74. Name, product and sub-industry fields match 8, 28 and 15 records respectively; the largest field is product field. Fields can overlap, and a term remains a search link rather than verified business activity.

Selected broad terms and specific segment terms, not the full query. Terms and fields can overlap and must not be summed. Counts show lexical sensitivity; no records are removed without primary evidence.

11 candidates match only a name, or lose all product-field matches after the full company name is removed while sub-industry also has no hit. This transparent string test locates copied company descriptions; it does not establish that a company does not operate the business.

17 of this cohort’s 74 records link through existing company-ID mappings to 2026 lists from all jurisdictions (23.0%). This intersection measures list linkage, not successful recognition or company growth.

List rows and company IDs are separate counts, not new firms or final recognition.

Agricultural equipment needs production-object checks

The Agricultural machinery and equipment label covers 15 records (20.3% of this cohort). This archive clue raises a verification question about Monitoring, control or agricultural-operation equipment for defined objects; it does not establish that these companies already deliver it.

Shared records with Agricultural Equipment Food Processing Keyword Candidate Study: 70; records in this cohort but outside that set: 4. The intersection/union ratio is 76.9%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Shared records with Smart Agriculture IoT Equipment Keyword Candidate Study: 9; records in this cohort but outside that set: 65. The intersection/union ratio is 12.2%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Stable-ID samples, not rankings; metrics use the full cohort.