Advanced medical devices / Advanced equipment and industrial automation / Process equipment and inspection instruments Sub-industry and Supply-chain Study

Comparative structure study

The largest recorded reporting jurisdiction, Jiangsu, contains 59 records (18.4% of this 320-record cohort). The remaining cohort contains 261 records. The comparison concerns archive composition.

The recorded industry label Advanced equipment accounts for 7.5% here (24/320), compared with 71.2% in the parent set (2,907/4,085), an absolute gap of 63.7 percentage points.

127/320 companies link to pages with existing source-supported excerpts (39.7% of the cohort). The other 193 records remain usable for archive composition, but do not support new operating case studies.

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

The parent set, Advanced equipment and industrial automation / Process equipment and inspection instruments, contains 4,085 records. This cohort contributes 320 (7.8%); 3,765 records remain after excluding it.

The parent set, Advanced medical devices, contains 878 records. This cohort contributes 320 (36.4%); 558 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 2,883/3,765 remaining records (76.6%), an absolute gap of 69.1 percentage points from this cohort.

The full reporting jurisdiction distribution has 28 labels; the top 3 contain 118/320 records (36.9%).Other known labels contain 202 records.

For 320 records with known labels, the effective category count is 13.4, versus 28 actual labels. Definitions and scope are in the methodology.

The table shows ten labels; 18 others are included in the calculations above.

Record counts do not rank supply capability or economic size.

The largest intersection, Jiangsu × Biomedicine, contains 38 records, or 64.4% of the 59 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 73 non-empty cells; the other 65 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.

80 of this cohort’s 320 records link through existing company-ID mappings to 2026 lists from all jurisdictions (25.0%). 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.

Shared records with High End Medical Device Keyword Candidate Study: 320; records in this cohort but outside that set: 0. The intersection/union ratio is 33.3%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

Shared records with Medical Device Keyword Candidate Study: 320; records in this cohort but outside that set: 0. The intersection/union ratio is 24.6%, a measure of label overlap rather than business collaboration. Read comparison

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