CILM — Component Integrity and Lifecycle Management
Methodology and its limits
CILM in plain terms
CILM treats risk not as a fixed property of a part number or a supplier but as a consequence of how much verifiable evidence exists about the provenance and history of a specific lot.
Five factors are considered: supply-channel structure, counterfeit exposure frequency, verification quality, documentation integrity, and component criticality and lifecycle. Its scoring core, the Composite Integrity Risk Score (CIRS), maps them to one of four risk tiers with a separate confidence level. The tier and the application’s criticality indicate a recommended verification depth, from document review (L0) to destructive laboratory analysis (L3). Laboratory results update the record.
The output is always a risk tier, evidence confidence, a recommended verification depth and a recommended disposition — never an authenticity determination. The client makes the acceptance decision.
What CILM does not do
- It does not certify components or suppliers.
- It does not replace accredited testing.
- It does not determine authenticity.
- It does not constitute an industry standard. Its L0–L3 and C0–C4 scales are its own, not scales defined by SAE or IPC.
- Until validated, a CIRS score is experimental and is not a calibrated probability that a part is counterfeit.
Mandatory client requirements, critical contradictions in the evidence and unresolved lot identity are escalation conditions that a favorable composite score cannot offset. Where the evidence cannot support a defensible recommendation, the report names the unresolved issue and recommends quarantine, more evidence, further testing or rejection.
Maturity
| Element | Status | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Framework: factors, tiers, verification depths L0–L3, DCP structure | Documented draft | Used as a structured checklist in expert advisory work |
| CIRS weights, thresholds and override rules | Draft expert values; experimental until validation | Numerical scores shown as experimental, with the expert rationale; no accuracy or performance claim |
| Validation program | Designed; not executed | Acceptance criteria are fixed in the protocol before any case is labeled |
| Independent evaluation cases | To be assembled under a documented protocol and appropriate data rights | No set of independently labeled lots exists yet; case unit, inclusion rules and duplicate controls are defined before collection |
| Operating procedures (SOPs) and DCP template | Approved for development; not yet produced | Required before the first paid assessment |
| Crosswalk to published industry standards | Approved for development; not yet produced | Prepared after the licensed texts are purchased and before any client deliverable cites a specific clause; until then, reports cite standards by identifier only |
| Software | None | Conditional later phase |
The calculation weights, thresholds and override rules are confidential and are not published here.
Published material
- White paper on Zenodo: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19657865
- Three-part series in Supply Chain Management Review: Insights