Intelligent Sensing Machine Vision Keyword Candidate Study

Comparative structure study

The largest recorded reporting jurisdiction, Shenzhen, contains 28 records (33.3% of this 84-record cohort). The remaining cohort contains 56 records. The comparison concerns archive composition.

The recorded reporting jurisdiction label Shenzhen accounts for 33.3% here (28/84), compared with 7.2% in the parent set (1,398/19,297), an absolute gap of 26.1 percentage points.

26/84 companies link to pages with existing source-supported excerpts (31.0% of the cohort). The other 58 records remain usable for archive composition, but do not support new operating case studies.

1 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 84 (0.4%); 19,213 records remain after excluding it.

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

Excluding this cohort, the recorded reporting jurisdiction label Shenzhen covers 1,370/19,213 remaining records (7.1%), an absolute gap of 26.2 percentage points from this cohort.

The full reporting jurisdiction distribution has 22 labels; the top 3 contain 45/84 records (53.6%).Other known labels contain 39 records.

For 84 records with known labels, the effective category count is 6.6, 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, Shenzhen × Next-generation information technology, contains 21 records, or 75.0% of the 28 records carrying the Shenzhen 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 32 non-empty cells; the other 24 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, “machine vision” has the most matches: 47/84. Name, product and sub-industry fields match 0, 29 and 21 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.

1 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.

14 of this cohort’s 84 records link through existing company-ID mappings to 2026 lists from all jurisdictions (16.7%). 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.

Inspection systems must connect to process assessment

The Machine-vision inspection systems label covers 12 records (14.3% of this cohort). This archive clue raises a verification question about Inspection assessment or diagnosis for a defined process; it does not establish that these companies already deliver it.

Shared records with Industrial Robot Vision Inspection Keyword Candidate Study: 65; records in this cohort but outside that set: 19. The intersection/union ratio is 67.0%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Shared records with Machine Vision Optical Sorting Keyword Candidate Study: 63; records in this cohort but outside that set: 21. The intersection/union ratio is 63.0%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

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