Same geometry.
Different part numbers.
The failure mode is the same in every industry — the same part living under several identities. What it costs, and what a signed finding is worth, differs. Six exhibits follow; find your library.
| Exhibit | Industry | Governing concern |
|---|---|---|
| A | Aerospace & Defense | Configuration control under AS9100 |
| B | Automotive | Platform consolidation, BOM complexity |
| C | Medical Device | 510(k) predicate search, ISO 13485 |
| D | Industrial Machinery | Variant proliferation, SKU reduction |
| E | Semiconductor Equipment | Spares inventory, fab uptime |
| F | Robotics & Automation | Engineering time lost to redundant design |
Aircraft OEMs · Engine manufacturers · Defense contractors · Tier-1 aerostructures
The problemAt aircraft-program scale — parts counts in the millionsA — even a few percent duplication is tens of thousands of redundant part numbers moving through a global supply chain. Each one is a procurement line, a stocking decision, and a configuration-control liability under AS9100.
What the deliverables mean hereOne canonical identity per part: the same geometry carries the same identity whether it came from your vault, a supplier’s re-export, or a different CAD system. Duplicate and near-duplicate findings consolidate across programs. And when a delivered geometry does not match the approved revision, that is a comparison you can run, record, and replay — the signed report is audit evidence you can re-run in front of the auditor, byte-identical.
Vehicle OEMs · Tier-1 suppliers · Powertrain manufacturers · EV battery systems
The problemPlatforms are supposed to share parts. In practice each program re-creates fasteners, brackets, and housings that already exist two platforms over — because nobody can prove the existing part is the same part. The BOM grows, and every added line item compounds through procurement, tooling, and service.
What the deliverables mean hereIdentities are stable across the CAD systems your suppliers actually use, so a shared part is recognizably shared. The near-duplicate findings are your platform-consolidation candidate list — each candidate recorded with the tolerance policy it was judged under, ready for your PLM workflow rather than for an argument.
Implant manufacturers · Diagnostic equipment · Surgical instruments · Medical imaging
The problemThe FDA 510(k) pathway requires demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. Finding candidate predicates across design history files and predicate libraries is manual, slow, and hard to evidence — and a failed submission means months of delay and rework.
What the deliverables mean hereGauge.ID surfaces predicate candidates under a declared tolerance policy, with a replayable record of what was compared and under which rules. Equivalence determinations remain with your regulatory team — the instrument produces candidates and comparison records, not regulatory judgments. Anything that cannot be certified under the policy is flagged for review, never silently guessed. The same records serve the DHF and ISO 13485 audit trails.
Heavy equipment OEMs · Automation systems · HVAC manufacturers · Power generation
The problemMachinery built to order breeds variants. Every project clones a part and tweaks it, and ten years later the spares catalog carries six versions of the same wear plate. SKU count grows, inventory carries it, and field service inherits the complexity.
What the deliverables mean hereNear-duplicate findings show which variants are the same part under your declared tolerance — a defensible basis for standardization, because every consolidation candidate carries a replayable comparison record instead of an engineer’s recollection. New designs check against the library before they become new SKUs.
reduction in inventory carrying costs from parts standardization, at the upper end Industry estimatesD
Modular design · Spare parts management · Field service
Lithography systems · Deposition equipment · Inspection & metrology · Test equipment
The problemFab equipment holds thousands of precision components, and uptime is the business. Duplicate spares under different part numbers inflate inventory and slow service: the part on the shelf is the part you need, but the system cannot say so.
What the deliverables mean hereOne identity per geometry, stable across equipment generations and export paths, means the spares catalog can answer “do we already stock this?” deterministically. Findings consolidate the spares list; the signed report is the record of how it was consolidated, replayable when a customer or an internal audit asks.
of part numbers duplicated or obsolete in engineering libraries generally Industry studiesE
Precision components · Fab uptime · Service logistics
Industrial robot makers · Collaborative robots · AGV/AMR systems · Drone manufacturers
The problemRobotics teams straddle low-volume specialized systems and higher-volume modular platforms. Redundant design work is the tax: every re-drawn bracket is an engineer not working on the product, and modular platforms drift when the same component is re-modeled per project.
What the deliverables mean hereA canonical identity per part makes the library searchable by geometry rather than by whatever a part happened to be named. Duplicate findings recover parts you already own before they are designed again. And anything the instrument cannot certify under your policy is flagged for review, not guessed — so the answers are ones engineers can act on.
of engineering time lost to redundant work Industry estimatesF
Modular robotics · Cobots · Autonomous systems
- A Aircraft part counts and per-part introduction costs are industry planning figures from aerospace PLM literature, not Gauge.ID measurements.
- B Vehicle component counts and consolidation-savings ranges are industry estimates.
- C 510(k) cost and review-time ranges are industry estimates from published regulatory surveys. Gauge.ID surfaces candidates and records comparisons; it makes no representation about FDA outcomes.
- D Inventory carrying-cost reduction is an upper-end industry estimate for parts-standardization programs.
- E Duplicate/obsolete part-number rates are industry studies of engineering libraries in general, not semiconductor-specific measurements.
- F Engineering-time-loss figures are industry estimates.
- None of the figures on this sheet are measurements of your library. A pilot audit produces your numbers.
The figures above are estimates. Yours don’t have to be.
A pilot audit replaces industry figures with your numbers: a sample of your library, a policy you approve, a signed replayable report. Run it twice — the bytes match.