Swipe tables sideways to see all columns.
Research scope and strength of conclusions
795 studies covering 783 distinct cohorts, dated 2026-10-16, compare archive composition, value-chain roles and evidence coverage.
| 30+ records | 10–29 records | 1–9 records | No matched records |
|---|---|---|---|
| 424 | 206 | 155 | 10 |
Topic cohorts can overlap and must not be summed. Small cohorts support counts rather than stable rankings; an empty cohort is not an industry gap.
Separate companies, batches and repeated rows
| Current public archive scope | Count |
|---|---|
| Raw batch rows | 19,433 |
| Distinct company–batch pairs | 19,431 |
| Distinct companies with batch labels | 19,297 |
| Companies with multiple batch labels | 134 |
| Duplicate company–batch rows | 2 |
Batch labels are not a new-company time series; deduplication is not growth or recognition validity.
Public archive and 2026 list layers
A separate 2026 layer contains 11,218 local list records: 7,028 new-applicant and 4,190 review records. Only 4,333 mapped company IDs overlap the public archive. Another 6,885 records resolve outside that public set; they are not unresolved and are not added to this series’ company denominators.
List status retains the stored stage. Local recommendation is not final recognition, and record counts are not new-company counts or growth rates.
Industry frameworks and observation cohorts
Frameworks organise delivery and validation questions; they do not verify company businesses. Cohorts can overlap heavily and are not added to estimate industry size.
Specialised keyword cohorts
Specialised keyword cohorts (608)
Value-chain roles
Industry and chain
Sub-industry and chain
Jurisdiction and chain
Jurisdiction and chain (80)
Methodology and evidence limits
All studies retain original URLs and filters and deduplicate stable company IDs. Parent sets and contrasts excluding the focal cohort are separate. Dimensions fixed by filters are not findings. Representation ratios describe archive label participation, not market share, output or competitiveness.
Concentration requires mutually exclusive known labels and at least 30 labelled records. The effective category count is the reciprocal of the sum of squared shares among known records: the number of equal-sized categories with that concentration. It describes archive composition, not market competition. Multi-label participation and cross-tab cells overlap and cannot be summed into distinct firms. Fewer than ten records support counts; 10–29 describe structure without stable rankings. No matches do not mean no industry.
The intersection/union ratio divides shared company IDs by the deduplicated union; focal-only IDs equal the focal count minus the intersection. Participation gaps use each full cohort as its denominator and are reported in percentage points. Cohorts may overlap and are not independent samples. A separate parent contrast excludes the focal cohort to avoid including it on both sides. These descriptive differences do not establish causes; products, archive coverage and classification sources still require verification.
Batch labels are cross-sectional: recognition, review, relocation and archive coverage can affect them, and a company can carry several. Counts are not new firms, growth or survival rates. The 2026 local lists form a separate layer; existing ID mappings do not establish final recognition.
Source coverage counts existing review configurations with bilingual excerpts and resolvable source IDs. It does not re-certify originals or entire historical texts. Non-empty fields and document-like URLs are not original evidence. Keywords establish search relevance only; broad terms, company names and copied introductions can enlarge candidate cohorts.
Provincial statistics, reporting-jurisdiction archives and combined provincial cohorts retain separate denominators. Macro statistics do not establish individual customers, deliveries, revenue or technical capability. Proximity and shared labels do not prove transactions. Classification questions receive sensitivity counts, not automatic reclassification.
Do topic counts or keyword hits establish industrial strength?
No. Topic counts describe editorial categories and keyword hits locate candidates. Comparisons require deduplicated IDs, comparable sets, primary delivery evidence and outcome measures.
This series is research material, not investment advice.
Semiconductors: materials, devices and manufacturing validation
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Integrated circuits and supporting materials, components and dedicated equipment; labels do not establish fabrication capability.
The 2025-2026 electronics action plan supports innovation in integrated circuits, advanced computing and displays, while separately identifying components, electronic materials and dedicated equipment. These are distinct product scopes, not interchangeable evidence of chip manufacturing capability. [1]
The 2024-2027 fine-chemicals plan includes electronic chemicals and pilot platforms for ultrahigh-purity purification and photoresist-resin synthesis. Purification, formulation and device processing are different delivery stages. [2]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials and formulations | Chemical feedstocks, purification processes and formulation requirements | Electronic chemicals, resins or supporting materials | Check purity, impurity control, batch consistency and disclosed application validation [2] |
| Devices and dedicated equipment | Device designs, materials and manufacturing requirements | Components, dedicated equipment or technical modules | Verify product scope and performance evidence without inferring process capability or customers from labels [1] |
Separate material leads by application validation
The fine-chemicals plan addresses purification, formulations and application validation for electronic chemicals; identical material names do not establish equivalent impurity control or downstream fit. [2]
Checking only a material name can leave batch variation or application-condition mismatches unexamined at delivery validation.
Verification indicators: Purity and impurity scope; Batch consistency; Application-validation object and conditions
Components and equipment carry different validation tasks
The electronics action plan lists integrated circuits, components, materials and dedicated equipment separately. A device and production equipment have different product boundaries. [1]
Counting supporting equipment as chip-fabrication capability would misstate the processes actually evidenced in the candidate set.
Verification indicators: Product model and process boundary; Performance-test conditions; Research, launch and actual-delivery status
Process nodes, wafer capacity, customer qualification, domestic market share, yield or volume-production status.
Electronic systems: components and end-product delivery
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Analyse electronic components, supporting equipment and end systems separately.
The 2025-2026 electronics action plan addresses foundational industries, end products and applications separately. Components, materials, equipment and finished systems require distinct scopes; suppliers should not be counted as end-product manufacturers. [1]
The plan identifies advanced memory, heterogeneous integration, high-speed photonic chips and co-packaged optics as research directions. These priorities do not establish technical breakthroughs by companies in the database. [1]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundational components | Electronic materials, component designs and processing requirements | Components, interconnects and control modules | Product models, performance documentation and application scope [1] |
| Systems and terminals | Components, software and interface requirements | End products or system solutions | Distinguish research direction, product launch and actual delivery [1] |
Component records require interface-level evidence
The electronics action plan distinguishes foundational components from finished products; evidence about a foundational product cannot replace evidence of complete-system delivery. [1]
If component parameters are not aligned with system requirements, research can misstate supply scope as system-integration scope.
Verification indicators: Models and parameters; Intended application; System-fit documentation
Check terminal direction separately from system delivery
The action plan treats foundational supply and terminal applications separately; the research object should be the complete system and its use case. [1]
Inferring volume production or customer coverage from a terminal keyword would confuse product direction with commercial execution.
Verification indicators: System configuration; Application-test scope; Disclosed delivery period and object
End-product sales, customers, brand position, system reliability or revenue mix.
Computing and industrial AI: hardware, models and application fit
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate AI computing supply from industrial applications; policy tasks are not deployment results.
The AI Plus Manufacturing opinion published in January 2026 identifies training and inference chips, AI servers, high-speed interconnects and computing-cloud operating systems as supply-side technologies. Hardware, networks and system software require separate analysis. [3]
The opinion calls for models suited to manufacturing's real-time, reliability and safety needs, with cloud-edge-device coordination and lightweight deployment. Parameter count is not evidence of industrial task suitability. [3]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Computing infrastructure | Chips, servers, interconnects and system software | Training, inference or edge-computing services | Evidence of workload fit, resource scheduling and hardware-software integration [3] |
| Models to applications | Industry data, models and defined industrial tasks | Industry models, industrial agents or application services | Task evaluation, latency, reliability and data security [3] |
Computing delivery must be assessed against workloads
The AI-manufacturing opinion published in 2026 identifies training and inference chips, servers, high-speed interconnects and computing-cloud operating systems as supply tasks. [3]
When hardware, software and workload conditions do not match, individual specifications cannot establish usable service delivery.
Verification indicators: Workload and evaluation conditions; Resource-scheduling scope; Hardware-software compatibility tests
Model applications require task and data checks
The AI-manufacturing opinion addresses industry datasets, evaluation, real-time performance and reliability alongside data and model risks. [3]
Where task or data boundaries are unclear, demonstration results may not support a judgment about production use.
Verification indicators: Data scope and governance; Task evaluation and real-time performance; Reliability, model risks and data security
Available computing capacity, model performance, paying customers, utilisation or company AI revenue.
Industrial software: models, business processes and control
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate engineering, production, business-management and control software by workflow.
The historical 14th Five-Year smart-manufacturing plan distinguishes design, production, business-management and control software. CAD/CAE, MES, ERP and industrial-control products therefore need separate market and workflow definitions. [4]
The plan lists process simulation, product-data management, scheduling, quality management and predictive maintenance. Company analysis should identify the software's inputs, outputs and place in production. [4]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engineering and production management | Design models, processes, orders and material data | Simulation results, process plans or production tasks | Model scope, interfaces and consistency with the business process [4] |
| Control and operations | Equipment states, field data and control requirements | Control execution, diagnosis or maintenance support | Test coverage, deployment boundaries and security [4] [3] |
Workflow coverage matters more than a single market label
The historical smart-manufacturing plan distinguishes engineering, production and business-management software, providing workflow boundaries rather than a single competitive market. [4]
Without defined model, data and workflow scope, a feature list can conceal gaps in actual process integration.
Verification indicators: Model and workflow applicability; Input-output data consistency; Interface and workflow tests
Field control and maintenance require deployment conditions
The historical smart-manufacturing plan covers control execution and maintenance; the AI-manufacturing opinion published in 2026 also includes testing and operations in the software lifecycle. [4] [3]
When field conditions differ from test coverage, offline validation cannot replace deployment-specific reliability assessment.
Verification indicators: Equipment and deployment boundary; Test coverage; Reliability and security conditions
Software substitution rates, subscription revenue, installations, customer retention or field-control safety compliance.
Robotics: components, machines and application integration
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Verify robot components, machines and application integration separately.
The historical 14th Five-Year robotics plan separately identifies reducers, servo drives, controllers, integrated joints, sensors and end effectors. This provides a role framework, not evidence that any sampled company has achieved a breakthrough. [5]
The plan focuses on accuracy retention, reliability and noise for reducers, and control, structure and power density for servo systems. Each component needs relevant tests; patent counts do not measure these properties. [5]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drive and sensing components | Precision transmission parts, motors, controls and sensing technologies | Reducers, servo systems, joints or sensing modules | Accuracy retention, reliability, control and interface tests [5] |
| Machines and integration | Components, robot hardware and defined task requirements | Robots or application-specific operating systems | Functional, performance, safety and field-test evidence [5] |
Precision-component acceptance depends on operating conditions
The historical robotics plan separately addresses reducer accuracy retention and life, servo control and joint integration; component performance cannot replace machine-task validation. [5]
If specifications or interfaces do not cover operating conditions, passing a component test is insufficient to judge system deliverability.
Verification indicators: Accuracy retention and life; Control and interface tests; Reliability and operating conditions
Application integration is assessed against task results
The robotics plan separates industrial, service and specialised applications and addresses system function, performance, safety and reliability tests. [5]
If task conditions or test scope change, performance in a demonstration may not transfer to another application.
Verification indicators: Task and use conditions; Function and performance tests; Safety, reliability and field tests
Installations, import substitution, complete-machine performance, customer volume qualification or market position.
Manufacturing equipment: process capability and machining validation
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Study processing machines, controls, inspection equipment and integrated lines separately.
The historical smart-manufacturing plan separately lists machine tools, additive manufacturing, laser processing, industrial control, inspection and logistics equipment. Research must identify whether a company supplies processing machines, controls or complete lines. [4]
The plan identifies five-axis centres, mill-turn centres and precision grinders as development directions. A policy development list is not a sampled company's existing product catalogue. [4]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment and control | Processing tasks, mechanical parts and control systems | Dedicated machines, CNC equipment or manufacturing cells | Workpiece-specific accuracy, stability and test records [4] |
| Processes and lines | Equipment, processes, inspection and logistics requirements | Process solutions or integrated lines | Machine versus line acceptance scope, interfaces and maintenance records [4] |
Equipment performance must refer to a processing object
The historical smart-manufacturing plan separately lists CNC, laser, additive and industrial-control equipment with different processing tasks. [4]
Without test-workpiece or operating-condition details, nominal parameters cannot establish deliverability for the target process.
Verification indicators: Workpiece and material scope; Accuracy and stability tests; Operating conditions and control configuration
Line delivery adds process-interface responsibilities
The smart-manufacturing plan incorporates process equipment, inline inspection, logistics and maintenance into manufacturing systems, making their interfaces a research question. [4]
If interfaces or acceptance responsibilities are unclear, operable equipment does not establish completion of the line task.
Verification indicators: Process interfaces; Machine versus line acceptance scope; Inspection and maintenance records
Machining accuracy, line throughput, utilisation, substitution capability or customer acceptance results.
Inspection instruments: measurement, methods and process fit
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate sensing components, instruments and inspection-assessment services.
The 2023-2025 inspection-equipment plan separately addresses measurement traceability, methods, components, dedicated software and complete instruments. It supplies a historical research framework, not proof that its objectives were achieved. [6]
The plan lists sensors, gratings, encoders, cameras, X-ray sources and detectors. Component capability does not establish complete-system accuracy without integration and test evidence. [6]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensing and measurement | Test objects, measurement methods and core components | Sensor signals, measurement data or inspection equipment | Measurement traceability, test range and environmental conditions [6] |
| Analysis and process application | Inspection data, analytical software and user processes | Assessment results, inline evaluation or diagnostic support | Performance, reliability and process-compatibility testing [6] |
Check traceability and conditions before comparing measurement data
The historical inspection-equipment plan separates traceability, methods, components and complete instruments; an instrument name does not define measurement capability. [6]
Missing traceability or environmental conditions can prevent test results from supporting product comparisons or acceptance judgments.
Verification indicators: Measurement traceability; Range and test conditions; Repeatability and reliability documents
Inspection systems must connect to process assessment
The inspection-equipment plan covers dedicated software and inline, embedded and in-service inspection, making fit with user processes a research issue. [6]
When offline tests differ from field processes, instrument data may be insufficient for inline assessment.
Verification indicators: User process and object; Data-to-assessment workflow; Field-fit and reliability tests
Measurement accuracy, accreditation, detection performance, error rates or process fit.
Materials: stable production, processing and application evaluation
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate material preparation, processing and system validation; grades do not substitute for performance evidence.
The historical raw-materials plan prioritises stable production, compositional and structural uniformity, and feedstock homogenisation and purification. Identical product names do not establish equivalent composition control or batch consistency. [7]
The plan links product design, production development, system validation and batch application. Laboratory samples, engineered materials and stable commercial supply are distinct milestones. [7]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production and processing | Feedstocks, composition designs and processing methods | Specified material grades, processed forms or functional materials | Composition and structure, batch stability and process control [7] |
| Application validation | Material samples and defined use conditions | Evaluation results and application-fit evidence | Environmental suitability, defect analysis and system-validation records [7] |
Material delivery requires stable-production evidence
The historical raw-materials plan identifies feedstock homogenisation, purification, compositional and structural uniformity, and stable production as engineering tasks. [7]
If only a nominal grade is checked, batch variation and process changes may remain outside delivery-risk assessment.
Verification indicators: Composition and structure; Batch consistency; Feedstock and process control
Material properties require use-specific system validation
The raw-materials plan links design, development and production, system validation and batch application, including environmental suitability and failure analysis. [7]
Laboratory-sample properties do not automatically cover performance after processing, assembly or changes in use conditions.
Verification indicators: System-validation object; Environmental suitability; Failure analysis and application status
Leading grades, batch stability, customer qualification, substitution share or economies of scale.
Fine chemicals: reaction, separation and functional delivery
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Study reaction and purification, functional formulations and downstream applications separately.
The 2024-2027 fine-chemicals plan covers specialty chemicals and chemical materials, including engineering plastics, specialty rubber, functional membranes, adhesives, electronic chemicals and catalysts. Product uses and performance requirements remain distinct. [2]
The plan identifies continuous reactions, microchannels, catalysis, separation and purification as technical directions. Formulation, manufacturing processes and application services are different capabilities and cannot be inferred from business scope alone. [2]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reaction and purification | Feedstocks, catalysts and process conditions | Intermediates, polymers or high-purity chemicals | Reaction safety, purification and pilot-scale records [2] |
| Formulation and application | Base materials, additives and application requirements | Functional materials, specialty formulations or application solutions | Grade-specific performance, quality consistency and application tests [2] |
Intermediates and high-purity products need scale-up checks
The 2024-2027 fine-chemicals plan addresses continuous reactions, catalysis, separation, purification and pilot facilities, so engineering assessment requires more than a molecule name. [2]
Without scale-up conditions and reaction-safety evidence, laboratory results cannot establish manufacturing deliverability.
Verification indicators: Reaction and purification conditions; Pilot scale-up records; Safety and environmental scope
Formulation assessment depends on use and consistency evidence
The fine-chemicals plan separately lists coatings, adhesives and membrane materials and addresses functional improvement and application validation. [2]
When use, substrate or operating conditions change, existing formulation tests may not cover the new delivery requirements.
Verification indicators: Grade and use; Performance and consistency; Application substrate and test conditions
Pilot success rates, process-safety compliance, product margins, customer qualification or effective capacity.
Building and inorganic materials: performance, applications and capacity constraints
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Group traditional building materials separately from advanced inorganic materials; do not infer one shared business cycle.
The 2025-2026 building-materials plan separates traditional materials upgrading from advanced inorganic materials. Cement and flat glass should not be analysed as one market with advanced ceramics, crystals and composites. [8]
The plan prohibits new clinker and flat-glass capacity and addresses capacity replacement and risk warnings. Expansion analysis needs project status and policy constraints, not demand-based growth assumptions alone. [8]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preparation and forming | Mineral feedstocks, formulations and forming processes | Building products or advanced inorganic materials | Product performance, energy use and applicable capacity policy [8] |
| Construction and applications | Material products and application requirements | Building components, functional materials or validation results | Mandatory standards, traceability and application-test scope [8] |
Traditional materials require product and manufacturing checks
The 2025-2026 building-materials plan addresses traditional-product upgrading and capacity governance separately; policy support does not establish company compliance or product quality. [8]
Ignoring product categories and manufacturing conditions can extend inapplicable capacity rules or performance conclusions across the candidate set.
Verification indicators: Product category and performance; Manufacturing energy-use boundary; Capacity-policy applicability
Advanced inorganic materials need use-specific validation
The building-materials plan separates advanced inorganic non-metallic materials from traditional products and addresses pilot work and application validation. [8]
Where laboratory properties or material names do not cover engineering conditions, they cannot establish in-use engineering performance.
Verification indicators: Specific use and test conditions; Application-validation scope; Relevant standards and quality traceability
Capacity compliance, supply-demand gaps, construction certification, in-building performance or company profitability.
New energy vehicles: vehicle integration and critical systems
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
A new-energy-vehicle planning framework only, not evidence about conventional combustion vehicles.
The 2021-2035 NEV plan separates battery-electric, plug-in hybrid and fuel-cell vehicle development from batteries and management, motors and power electronics, and connected intelligent technologies. Vehicles and system suppliers need separate analysis. [9]
The plan addresses vehicle platforms, integrated chassis, energy management, lightweighting and charging connections. Supplying one automotive part does not establish a complete platform or vehicle-integration capability. [9]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical components and systems | Materials, component designs and control technologies | Battery, electric-drive, power-electronics or connected systems | Product performance, safety and validation level [9] |
| Vehicles and replenishment | Critical systems, vehicle platforms and charging or refuelling facilities | Vehicle integration or energy-replenishment services | System compatibility, safety and disclosed application evidence [9] |
NEV component validation needs a defined system level
The NEV plan separately addresses battery management, motors and power electronics, and connected intelligence, with different validation levels for vehicles and components. [9]
If component performance does not cover vehicle-system conditions, it cannot establish platform qualification or vehicle-performance improvement.
Verification indicators: NEV-business applicability; Component performance and safety tests; System-integration validation level
Vehicles and replenishment require compatibility boundaries
The NEV plan includes vehicle integration, energy replenishment and connected technologies as distinct system elements. [9]
Where test platforms or interface conditions differ, disclosed applications may not establish deliverability for another platform.
Verification indicators: Platform and interface boundary; Compatibility and safety tests; Object and period of disclosed applications
Vehicle sales, designated supply, platform awards, automotive qualification, cost advantage or range improvement.
Energy storage: devices, integration and lifecycle safety
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate storage devices, power conversion, management and protection, and integration, with distinct technology routes.
The energy-storage manufacturing action plan covers storage devices, information processing, safety control, power management and thermal management. Cells, converters, management systems and station integration are distinct businesses. [10]
The plan addresses lithium, sodium, flow batteries, flywheels and compressed air for different durations and applications. Materials, equipment and validation needs differ; capacity alone is not a complete comparison. [10]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Storage devices | Active materials, critical components and manufacturing processes | Storage cells, modules or other storage devices | Consistency, lifetime, environmental suitability and safety tests [10] |
| System integration and control | Storage devices, converters, management and protection systems | Integrated storage systems and control functions | Conversion efficiency, operating-condition and multiscale safety validation [10] |
Validate storage devices by route and operating conditions
The storage-manufacturing action plan covers multiple technologies; device properties and system operating metrics belong to different levels. [10]
Mixing data across routes or operating conditions can make life and performance comparisons invalid.
Verification indicators: Technology route and test conditions; Consistency and life; Environmental suitability and safety tests
Storage integration connects information, power and protection
The storage action plan addresses power management, information processing, safety and thermal management, including multiscale safety validation. [10]
Without validated control and protection boundaries, individual component results cannot establish whole-system safety.
Verification indicators: Level to which conversion efficiency applies; Management-protection coordination; Operating conditions and multiscale safety validation
Installed capacity, system efficiency, life, safety compliance, project returns or utilisation.
Photovoltaics: products, systems and operating compatibility
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate PV materials and components, system applications and maintenance; a historical plan does not describe the current market.
The historical 2021-2025 smart-photovoltaics plan separately addresses manufacturing, applications, maintenance and dispatch. It provides technical context, not 2026 industry scale or company performance. [11]
The plan distinguishes smart modules from inverters, controllers, combiner boxes, storage and tracking systems. Module supply, power conversion and integration need separate treatment. [11]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Products and components | PV materials, devices and manufacturing processes | Modules or power-conversion components | Product performance, quality and test conditions [11] |
| Systems and maintenance | Modules, inverters, control and application conditions | Generation systems and operating services | Grid compatibility, monitoring and system-acceptance scope [11] |
Keep performance boundaries for modules and supporting products
The historical smart-PV plan lists modules, inverters and controls separately and distinguishes manufacturing from applications. [11]
When test objects or conditions differ, component performance cannot directly compare system generation.
Verification indicators: Product and use; Performance-test conditions; Quality and application-fit evidence
System delivery must address grid connection and operation
The smart-PV plan incorporates maintenance and dispatch into applications; a component parameter cannot replace system-output evidence. [11]
Without clear application and operating-data boundaries, equipment disclosures cannot establish generation efficiency or returns.
Verification indicators: Grid and application conditions; Monitoring and diagnosis scope; System acceptance and operating data
Module efficiency, shipments, generation, degradation, capacity utilisation or project returns.
Power equipment: components, systems and condition-based maintenance
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate power components and equipment from condition monitoring and operational control.
The AI manufacturing opinion published in 2026 separately addresses power-equipment design simulation, manufacturability, assembly compatibility and condition-based maintenance. Development, production and maintenance need distinct evidence. [3]
The opinion calls for core-component optimisation and digital-twin design and simulation of large generating equipment. Simulation or algorithm projects do not establish equipment deliveries. [3]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Components and equipment | Structural designs, core components and manufacturing requirements | Generation, transmission, distribution or power-conversion equipment | Design testing, manufacturability and assembly-fit scope [3] [10] |
| Monitoring and operation | Equipment-condition and system-operation data | Monitoring, health assessment or dispatch support | Assessment objects, model testing and deployment boundaries [3] |
Power-equipment design must connect to manufacturing and assembly
The AI-manufacturing opinion published in 2026 separately identifies power-equipment simulation, manufacturability and assembly compatibility as tasks. [3]
If simulation conditions are disconnected from manufacturing and assembly, design results cannot establish equipment deliverability.
Verification indicators: Design and test object; Manufacturability; Assembly and system fit
Condition assessment needs field data and object boundaries
The AI-manufacturing opinion identifies condition assessment, life prediction and dispatch as application tasks requiring distinct testing and deployment. [3]
Without known equipment and operating-condition coverage, prediction outputs cannot be equated with field reliability.
Verification indicators: Field data and equipment scope; Model testing; Deployment boundary and operating records
Grid-supply qualification, operational scale, failure rates, realised energy savings or system stability.
Hydrogen: production, storage, transport and end-use fit
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate production, storage, transport and use, with distinct energy-source and transport-route boundaries.
The 2021-2035 hydrogen plan covers production, storage, transport and use. Electrolysers, storage and transport equipment, fuel cells and end-use operation are distinct businesses. [12]
The plan links production routes to resources and industrial location, addressing renewable hydrogen and local use of industrial by-product hydrogen. A hydrogen label does not establish energy source or low-carbon status. [12]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production and supply | Energy sources, feedstocks and hydrogen-production routes | Hydrogen or production equipment | Process, energy boundary and specific testing evidence [12] |
| Storage, transport and applications | Hydrogen, transport routes and end-use requirements | Storage and transport systems, refuelling or end-use equipment | Material compatibility, safety tests and pilot-operation status [12] |
Hydrogen-production routes need energy boundaries
The hydrogen plan distinguishes renewable-energy production from industrial by-product hydrogen and links supply layouts to resource conditions. [12]
Without energy or process boundaries, hydrogen outputs from different sources cannot support like-for-like cost or emissions comparisons.
Verification indicators: Feedstocks and energy sources; Process and test conditions; Equipment-delivery versus hydrogen-supply status
Storage, transport and use require material-compatibility checks
The hydrogen plan addresses storage and transport alongside material suitability and safety monitoring, including embrittlement, leakage and protection issues. [12]
Without route and material-compatibility checks, a single equipment test cannot cover the safety boundary of storage, transport and use.
Verification indicators: Transport route and operating conditions; Material compatibility and safety tests; Pilot and operating status
Green-hydrogen output, production cost, emission reductions, refuelling utilisation or profitability.
Environmental and circular technologies: pollutants, processes and operating boundaries
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate treatment equipment, materials and chemicals, monitoring and facility operation, with defined treatment objects.
The historical 2022-2025 environmental-equipment plan distinguishes treatment systems, monitoring instruments, general equipment, materials, chemicals and components. Manufacturing, material supply and facility operation are distinct activities. [13]
The plan addresses air, water, solid waste, soil and emerging pollutants separately. Treatment performance requires pollutant, influent or gas conditions and process evidence, not a generic environmental label. [13]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials and equipment | Treatment requirements, materials, chemicals and dedicated parts | Treatment equipment, membranes, chemicals or monitoring instruments | Target pollutants, conditions, reliability and application validation [13] |
| Engineering and operation | Waste streams, system processes and operating conditions | Treatment outcomes or recovered products | Treatment boundaries, emission evidence and completeness of operating data [13] |
Assess environmental products against treatment media
The historical environmental-equipment plan separates pollution-treatment fields and distinguishes complete equipment, monitoring, general equipment, materials and chemicals. [13]
When incoming media or treatment conditions change, existing tests may not cover new treatment requirements.
Verification indicators: Pollutants and media; Applicable conditions and application tests; Reliability and performance boundaries
Evidence equipment delivery separately from treatment outcomes
The environmental-equipment plan covers integrated processes and application validation, so product parameters and facility outcomes require different evidence levels. [13]
With incomplete treatment boundaries or operating data, a single test or equipment specification may not represent sustained treatment.
Verification indicators: Treatment boundary and process; Inlet-outlet data basis; Operating records and outcome evidence
Emission compliance, treatment efficiency, project load, recovery rates, operating revenue or realised emission reductions.
Biopharmaceuticals: processes, quality systems and validation records
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate pharmaceutical production quality from industrial biomanufacturing; drug standards do not cover every biological business.
The revised 2010 drug GMP covers production and quality control, addressing contamination, cross-contamination and mix-up risks. Drug discovery, active ingredients, formulations and contract services require distinct business scopes. [14]
GMP requires approved validation protocols, execution records and reviewed reports, with qualification or validation for important quality-related changes. Equipment and patents alone do not establish validated processes. [14]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Process development and production | Materials, processes and quality requirements | Active ingredients, formulations or defined technical services | Business scope, process validation and production records [14] |
| Quality control | Batch samples, analytical methods and specifications | Testing, review and traceable records | Method verification, validation, changes and review evidence [14] |
Drug-production leads need validation and change records
The available drug GMP text uses a quality system to control contamination and mix-up risks and includes validation, records and change management in production quality management. [14]
When material, process or method changes lack corresponding records, continuing applicability of prior validation requires checking; a company tag does not establish compliance.
Verification indicators: Business and product scope; Process-validation and batch records; Testing methods, changes and review documents
Industrial biomanufacturing needs scale-up and process-control evidence
The AI-manufacturing opinion published in 2026 addresses strain, enzyme and pathway design, pilot parameters, and controls such as temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen. [3]
Without links between design outputs and pilot or production conditions, scaled-process performance cannot be inferred, still less clinical benefit.
Verification indicators: Strain or enzyme and use; Pilot and scale-up scope; Process parameters and control records
Drug efficacy or safety, clinical progress, GMP compliance, approvals, capacity or biomanufacturing yield.
Medical devices: core components, integration and registration evidence
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate medical components from complete devices, with intended use and product scope verified separately.
The historical medical-equipment plan separates diagnostics, treatment, monitoring, life support and rehabilitation, alongside materials and components. Different medical purposes require distinct technical and evidence scopes. [15]
The plan lists detectors, X-ray tubes, magnets, probes, valves and pumps with testing and evaluation. Component performance is not complete-device clinical performance, and supply capability is not device registration. [15]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials and core components | Medical materials, sensing, optoelectronic and precision components | Components, modules or supporting materials | Intended use, performance, reliability and integration evidence [15] |
| Devices and quality management | Components, software, intended use and product requirements | Medical devices and corresponding technical documentation | Classification, registration or filing scope and quality-management evidence [16] |
Component validation does not replace device-use evidence
The historical medical-equipment plan separately addresses diagnostic, treatment and monitoring systems and materials, detectors, probes and other core components. [15]
Where component tests do not cover integration and intended use, they cannot establish device suitability or clinical effectiveness.
Verification indicators: Component function and receiving equipment; Performance and reliability tests; Device-integration scope
Device research must verify the specific product scope
The available device-registration and filing text addresses specific products and their quality management; a company name or tag does not replace product-scope evidence. [16]
If models or intended uses do not match, documents for another product cannot establish deliverability or suitability for the object under review.
Verification indicators: Product model and intended use; Matching scope of registration or filing documents; Quality-system and test evidence
Registration or filing status, clinical effectiveness, safety, hospital customers, installations or reimbursement access.
Food manufacturing: inputs, processing and traceability
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate human-food inputs, processing equipment and traceability services; do not extend this framework to ordinary packaging or animal feed.
The food-industry digitalisation plan spans raw-material supply, design, production, sales and traceability. Agricultural supply, processing, equipment and information services are distinct scopes. [17]
The plan distinguishes process industries such as beverages, oils and dairy from the needs of baking, canning and tea processing. One processing technology or line specification does not apply to all foods. [17]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs and processing | Food inputs, formulations and processing requirements | Food products or processing equipment | Input batches, process scope and quality control [17] |
| Delivery and traceability | Production, storage and distribution records | Product deliveries and traceability information | Traceability scope, data completeness and safety management [17] |
Food processing needs input- and process-specific checks
The food-digitalisation plan links supply, design and production and addresses distinct processes for beverages, oils, dairy and other foods. [17]
Without matched input batches and process objects, equipment parameters cannot establish the quality of a particular food product.
Verification indicators: Input batches; Food category and process scope; Quality-control and production records
Traceability services require linked-record checks
The food-digitalisation plan extends traceability across supply, production and distribution; platform presence does not establish linked or complete records. [17]
Missing batch links or stage records prevent feature disclosures from establishing actual traceability scope.
Verification indicators: Supply-to-distribution coverage; Batch linkage; Data completeness and quality-management records
Food-safety compliance, actual traceability completeness, shelf life, retail sales, processing capacity or loss reductions.
Agricultural technology: production conditions, equipment and lifecycle data
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate crop, livestock, aquaculture and post-production distribution by object.
The 2024-2028 smart-agriculture plan links technology choices to species and production conditions, distinguishing crop, livestock and aquaculture farms. Yield or cost claims cannot be transferred across production systems without evidence. [18]
Crop applications include environmental monitoring, water and input management, protection and machinery. Livestock and aquaculture have separate physiological, feeding, water-quality and aeration needs. Equipment and algorithms require defined tasks. [18]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring and operations | Crops or animals, environmental conditions and task requirements | Monitoring, control, machinery or operational services | Species, conditions, tasks and demonstration scope [18] |
| Post-production and distribution | Agricultural products, storage and quality records | Preservation, logistics or traceability services | Distribution stages, traceability and data boundaries [18] |
Agricultural equipment needs production-object checks
The smart-agriculture plan matches technologies to species and conditions, distinguishing farm water, fertiliser and pest tasks, livestock feeding and monitoring, and aquaculture water quality. [18]
If demonstration conditions differ from actual sites, one demonstration cannot establish general yield or cost benefits.
Verification indicators: Species and production environment; Operating task; Demonstration conditions and applicability
Post-production services need preservation and distribution boundaries
The smart-agriculture plan links origin preservation, cold-chain distribution and traceability; the research object is the stages traversed by a particular product. [18]
With incomplete preservation conditions or record chains, equipment or platform names cannot establish final-product quality.
Verification indicators: Product and stage coverage; Preservation conditions; Quality traceability and data boundaries
Yield gains, cost savings, field suitability, machinery effectiveness, breeding capability or veterinary-drug compliance.
General aviation: equipment, supporting systems and safety validation
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
General-aviation equipment and applications only; not evidence about satellites, launch systems or large airliners.
The 2024-2030 general-aviation plan separates aircraft, propulsion, onboard and mission systems, with demonstrations in logistics, emergency response and urban air mobility. Components and operational applications are different businesses. [19]
The plan separately addresses industrial standards, airworthiness, safety and reliability assessment, and conformity verification. Prototypes, flight tests, certification and commercial operation are distinct states. [19]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment and mission systems | Platform designs, propulsion, onboard systems and mission requirements | General-aviation equipment, components or mission systems | Product scope, testing, airworthiness applicability and reliability [19] |
| Demonstration and operating support | Equipment, infrastructure and scenario conditions | Demonstration projects or operating-support services | Verify demonstration, pilot, certification and commercial-operation status separately [19] |
Check aviation equipment by platform and mission
The general-aviation plan separately addresses aircraft, propulsion, onboard and mission systems, including testing, reliability and airworthiness-related work. [19]
If platforms or test conditions do not match, component or prototype disclosures cannot establish operational aircraft readiness.
Verification indicators: Platform and product boundaries; Test and reliability documents; Airworthiness applicability and actual status
Application demonstrations also need operating support
The general-aviation plan combines demonstrations with infrastructure and operating support; demonstration, pilot and commercial operation are different states. [19]
Without verified support conditions and operating status, a demonstrated use case should not be presented as sustained operational capability.
Verification indicators: Application and infrastructure; Support conditions; Demonstration, pilot and commercial-operation status
Airworthiness certification, commercial operation, flight safety, orders, route utilisation or space capability.
Ships and marine equipment: propulsion, systems and construction coordination
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Group green vessels, propulsion and equipment, and construction or repair separately; do not extend this to all marine industries.
The 2024-2030 green shipbuilding framework separates vessel designs, propulsion, marine equipment and final construction. Shipyards, engine producers and equipment suppliers have different delivery scopes. [20]
The framework addresses LNG, methanol, ammonia, hydrogen and battery propulsion through different development or demonstration measures. Fuel names alone establish neither lifecycle carbon performance nor commercial maturity. [20]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Propulsion and marine systems | Fuel pathways, propulsion designs and marine equipment | Propulsion systems, marine equipment or efficiency devices | Fuel compatibility, quality, reliability and application status [20] |
| Construction and lifecycle services | Vessel designs, systems and construction processes | Vessels, conversions or repair services | System matching, construction scope and environmental-indicator boundaries [20] |
Check propulsion fit by fuel route
The green-shipbuilding framework addresses LNG, methanol, ammonia, hydrogen and battery routes, alongside matching propulsion and supporting systems. [20]
Without fuel-compatibility and vessel-condition checks, an equipment disclosure cannot establish whole-vessel applicability.
Verification indicators: Fuel and vessel-type applicability; System matching; Quality, reliability and application status
Define delivery boundaries for construction and lifecycle services
The green-shipbuilding framework includes assembly, repair, conversion and dismantling, with carbon-footprint and hazardous-material considerations. [20]
Where lifecycle stages or environmental-indicator boundaries differ, evidence from one stage cannot represent whole-vessel lifecycle performance.
Verification indicators: Construction or service scope; System acceptance and actual status; Lifecycle stage of environmental indicators
Order tonnage, classification approval, fuel economics, realised emission reductions, shipowner customers or delivery schedules.
Rail transport: core systems, component life and operating conditions
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate rail vehicles, running and traction systems, controls and engineering machinery; a catalogue is not company certification.
The 2024 first-of-a-kind equipment catalogue distinguishes trainsets, locomotives and vehicles, railway machinery, urban transit vehicles and critical systems. Vehicles, construction equipment and components require separate scopes. [21]
The catalogue specifies different indicators for traction motors, wheels, axles, wheelsets and bearings. Analysis must identify the product entry and operating conditions rather than transfer one entry's requirements to all rail components. [21]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traction and running components | Motors, materials, bearings and mechanical designs | Traction systems, wheelsets or related components | Specific catalogue entry, accuracy, service life and operating conditions [21] |
| Control and system integration | Vehicle systems, control and communication requirements | Control systems or vehicle integration | Functional safety, communications and system-validation scope [21] |
Running and traction parts need operating-condition validation
The 2024 first-of-a-kind catalogue separates critical rail systems and parts and uses different performance dimensions for bearings, traction motors and other products. [21]
Performance comparisons without matching catalogue objects and operating conditions can conceal differences in product applicability.
Verification indicators: Object and operating conditions; Applicable accuracy, life or efficiency dimensions; Test documents and actual applications
Control and communications need system-validation scope
The first-of-a-kind catalogue lists dedicated technical dimensions for rail control and communications; it provides a product-check framework, not evidence of candidate inclusion or certification. [21]
Component tests or catalogue similarity cannot replace system validation or establish supply to an operating line.
Verification indicators: Functional-safety and communication scope; System interfaces; Validation level and primary supply evidence
Operating mileage, line supply, certification, catalogue inclusion, reliability compliance or order share.
Industrial services: professional delivery and links to manufacturing
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate design and testing, integrated delivery, supply chains and lifecycle services by outputs and responsibilities.
The 2025-2028 service-oriented manufacturing plan covers shared manufacturing, customisation, lifecycle management, integrated contracting, supply chains and remote maintenance. A business-model label does not establish revenue composition. [22]
The plan separately addresses technology services, industrial design, software, intellectual property, environmental and quality services. Their deliverables and professional scopes require separate verification. [22]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Requirements and professional design | Manufacturing needs, technical requirements and project scope | Design, diagnosis, testing or technical solutions | Professional scope, output documentation and testing evidence [22] |
| Delivery and ongoing services | Equipment, software, project and operating information | Integrated delivery, maintenance or supply-chain services | Delivery scope, acceptance and ongoing-service records [22] |
Study professional services by outputs rather than equipment counts
The service-oriented-manufacturing plan embeds professional design and testing in manufacturing; professional outputs and hardware are different delivery objects. [22]
Without output scope or acceptance evidence, a professional-service tag cannot establish project delivery.
Verification indicators: Outputs and service objects; Professional scope; Acceptance and testing evidence
Ongoing services need operating responsibilities and records
The service-oriented-manufacturing plan distinguishes integrated contracting, lifecycle management, remote maintenance and shared manufacturing, each with different delivery and operating scopes. [22]
Without service periods, responsibility boundaries or operating records, platform presence cannot establish continuing fulfilment.
Verification indicators: Project and responsibility boundaries; Acceptance and operating records; Period and object of ongoing services
Service-revenue share, renewal rates, customer relationships, contract fulfilment, shared-equipment utilisation or business-model maturity.
Manufacturing research framework: products, processes and delivery scope
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
A manufacturing-workflow framework for unclear classifications, without assigning specialist technologies.
The historical smart-manufacturing plan covers design, production, logistics, management and services. Where classification is unclear, research should establish actual products and roles without assigning an unsupported specialist technology. [4]
The plan distinguishes equipment, software and system solutions by industry and application. Names, business scope and keyword matches provide leads, not proof of a particular delivery capability. [4]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product and process definition | Product documentation, business scope and process information | Evidence-backed descriptions of products and roles | Separate company facts, policy directions and analytical judgments [4] |
| Delivery and evidence checks | Primary testing, application or delivery documents | Cases with defined evidentiary boundaries | Specify the object, period, scope and source [4] |
Define products before discussing manufacturing capability
The historical smart-manufacturing plan spans design, production, logistics, management and services, providing a role framework rather than product evidence. [4]
When products and processes are counted together, candidate totals can conceal different delivery objects.
Verification indicators: Products and uses; Process scope; Entity, period and primary documents
Cross-role leads raise handoff questions, not supply-link claims
The smart-manufacturing plan treats equipment, process and data integration as system tasks; multiple roles in one set do not establish coordination. [4]
Without interface, acceptance or application documents, a chain diagram can misstate candidate relationships as transactions.
Verification indicators: System and responsibility boundaries; Interface and acceptance scope; Application documents and corresponding entities
Industry technological strength, a complete supply chain, product performance, business growth or specialist market size.
Light consumer products and packaging: materials, design and quality
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Check paper and plastic packaging, leather, footwear and luggage, and sports equipment separately; materials and finished products are not interchangeable.
The 2025-2026 light-industry plan addresses leather, footwear and luggage, sports equipment, and paper and plastic packaging. These policy priorities do not make finished products, materials and production equipment interchangeable capabilities. [23]
The plan separately addresses product innovation, quality assurance and digital transformation. Research should check products, standards and delivery records rather than treat branding or digitalisation plans as completed certifications or upgrades. [23]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials and products | Materials, design and intended use | Light-industry materials, consumer products or packaging | Check material types, specifications and performance evidence; do not infer certification [23] |
| Design, manufacturing and quality | Product standards, design and production requirements | Separately scoped products, equipment or services | Verify delivery, inspection evidence and upgrade records [23] |
Validate packaging by use; circularity priorities are not performance results
The light-industry growth plan addresses circular use of paper and plastic packaging and tasks involving bio-based and degradable materials and water-based inks. [23]
A material direction or tag cannot replace performance evidence for a specific use; qualification for special uses requires separate verification.
Verification indicators: Materials, structure and use; Specific performance tests; Primary evidence for special uses and environmental claims
Check design and delivery separately for consumer products and support
The light-industry plan addresses leather design, footwear, luggage and sports equipment separately, alongside quality, standards and digitalisation tasks. [23]
Without actual product or inspection records, design directions and upgrading tasks should not be presented as completed improvements.
Verification indicators: Product category and design use; Inspection and quality evidence; Actual-delivery and upgrade records
Food or pharmaceutical contact qualification, environmental certification, brand value, retail sales or demonstrated degradation.
Textiles: process equipment, inspection and functional materials
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate fibre and textile functionality from weaving and dyeing equipment digitalisation; transformation tasks are not results.
The textile digital-transformation plan issued in 2025 addresses equipment upgrades, data management and flexible production, with targets for 2027 and 2030. These are policy tasks, not observed completion statistics. [24]
The plan distinguishes greige-fabric defect inspection and dye-and-chemical colour matching from upgrades to automation and online inspection equipment. Dyeing equipment, textile auxiliaries and inspection systems require separate product and delivery evidence. [24]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials and functional applications | Fibres, process parameters and application requirements | Fibres or textiles with tested functionality | Check consistency, batch stability and functional tests [24] |
| Process equipment and inspection | Weaving and dyeing requirements, production and quality data | Automation equipment, online inspection or process control | Distinguish equipment delivery, research and production-line use [24] |
Functional fibres need batch and use evidence
The textile digital-transformation plan identifies high-performance-fibre quality consistency, batch stability and smart wearable fibres as tasks. [24]
If processing or use conditions differ from functional tests, equivalent performance in finished textiles cannot be inferred.
Verification indicators: Functional tests and use; Consistency and batch stability; Processing and application conditions
Textile digitalisation needs equipment-data-process linkage
The textile plan addresses greige-fabric inspection, colour measurement and matching, process automation, inline inspection and data management, with future transformation targets. [24]
Equipment or system names alone do not establish linked process data and cannot be treated as target-completion statistics.
Verification indicators: Process and equipment objects; Inline inspection and data linkage; Actual-use and upgrade records
Functional compliance, colour-variation improvements, reduced energy use, digitalisation completion, yield or delivery efficiency.
Satellites and space: historical system categories and ground applications
Expand framework, stages and evidence conditions
Separate launch and space systems from ground applications, using the 2021 white paper only for historical classification.
The space white paper released in 2022 reviews progress since 2016 and the following five-year agenda. It is used here as a historical technical framework, not evidence of completion in 2026. [25]
The white paper separates space transport, space infrastructure, launch facilities and tracking, and distinguishes remote sensing, communications and navigation systems. Research should separate launch, satellite systems, ground equipment and applications rather than infer complete-system capability from a supporting role. [25]
| Stage | Inputs and conditions | Deliverable | Verification questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Launch and space systems | Mission, launch and satellite-system requirements | Separately verified launch services or space systems | Separate components, test status and system delivery [25] |
| Ground tracking and applications | Ground systems, satellite data and service requirements | Tracking support, data products or communications and navigation | Verify services, data sources and application evidence [25] |
Space products require component-versus-mission-system boundaries
The space white paper released in 2022 separately describes historical transport, space, launch and tracking systems, providing classification rather than 2026 completion evidence. [25]
Without test objects and delivery levels, support or research disclosures cannot establish completion of a system-level mission.
Verification indicators: Mission and product boundaries; Test level and period; Primary records of system delivery
Verify ground and data-application service scopes separately
The historical white paper distinguishes remote sensing, communications, navigation and ground-supported applications; space systems and data services have different delivery scopes. [25]
Without data sources, periods or service objects, a system name cannot establish current application outcomes or coverage.
Verification indicators: Data sources and periods; Terminal or software outputs; Primary service and application evidence
2026 programme progress, operational satellite counts, launch success rates, constellation completion, defence supply or commercial revenue.
Original framework sources
- Electronics Manufacturing Growth Action Plan 2025-2026 · 2025-08-22
- Fine Chemicals Innovation Plan 2024-2027 · 2024-07-02
- AI Plus Manufacturing Opinion and Industry Transformation Guidance · 2026-01-09
- 14th Five-Year Smart Manufacturing Plan, historical research framework · 2021-12-21
- 14th Five-Year Robotics Industry Plan, historical planning context · 2021-12-21
- Intelligent Inspection Equipment Action Plan 2023-2025, historical context · 2023-02-21
- 14th Five-Year Raw Materials Industry Plan, historical planning context · 2021-12-21
- Building Materials Growth Work Plan 2025-2026 · 2025-08-25
- New Energy Vehicle Industry Development Plan 2021-2035 · 2020-10-20
- High-Quality Development Action Plan for Energy Storage Manufacturing · 2025-02-10
- Smart Photovoltaics Innovation Action Plan 2021-2025, historical context · 2022-01-05
- Medium- and Long-Term Hydrogen Industry Development Plan 2021-2035 · 2022-03-23
- Environmental Equipment Manufacturing Action Plan 2022-2025, historical context · 2022-01-13
- Good Manufacturing Practice for Drugs, 2010 revision · 2011-01-17
- 14th Five-Year Medical Equipment Industry Plan, historical context · 2021-12-21
- Measures for Medical Device Registration and Filing · 2021-08-26
- Food Industry Digital Transformation Implementation Plan · 2025-06-05
- National Smart Agriculture Action Plan 2024-2028, official republication · 2024-10-25
- General Aviation Equipment Innovation and Application Plan 2024-2030, official republication · 2024-03-27
- Green Development Framework for Shipbuilding 2024-2030 · 2023-12-29
- First-of-a-Kind Major Technical Equipment Catalogue 2024, Chapter 7 · 2024-09-02
- Implementation Plan for Service-Oriented Manufacturing Innovation 2025-2028 · 2025-09-15
- Light Industry Growth Plan 2025-2026, official full-text republication · 2025-09-22
- Textile Industry Digital Transformation Plan, original policy attachment · 2025-06-19
- China’s Space Program: A 2021 Perspective, official full-text republication · 2022-03-28