Questions buyers and engineers actually ask, answered directly in the first paragraph. Outside figures are attributed to a named source and a date. Our own figures state what they do not show. Where our results went against us, they are here too.
Three about money, three about method. They cross-link, because in practice the money question and the method question are the same question asked by different people.
The outage is the small half. With replacement lead times running two to four years, a failure is a capacity event.
Warranty cycle limits cap revenue. The honest answer needs a degradation cost per dispatch, not a cycle counter.
8 to 12% over preventive, 30 to 40% over reactive — government figures, and narrower than the ones you have been shown.
Across four evaluations on public datasets, ours won once. The scorecard, the datasets, and the limits on the one we won.
It rejected about 70% of degraded rows. The rejection rate is the result, not a caveat on it.
That a method works. Not a failure rate, not a fleet statistic, not a claim about modern cells.
Most content in this field is written to be persuasive, which means the numbers arrive without their conditions. These pages go the other way: every outside statistic carries its source and its date, every internal figure carries what it does not show, and the studies where our own models lost are on the page next to the ones where they won. That is not modesty. It is the only way a number survives being looked up.
See the full evidence page →If a question here matters to a decision you are making, we would rather walk you through the record than send you a brochure.
Choir™ Corp