False Equivalence is one of a big sawhorses I bring out for why things suck so much more now, in aerospace and defense generally. For the past 10-15 years, we'v

False Equivalence is one of a big sawhorses I bring out for why things suck so much more now, in aerospace and defense generally. For the past 10-15 years, we've had mechanisms for quantitatively ballparking equivalence in pools of supportable assemblies and spared parts - but generally, no one wants to touch that. The purchasers of enterprise solutions (CAD, PDM, etc) want equivalence to be ultimately a financial decision, not a question solved by materials, interfaces, fluid dynamics, frickin' electricity, etc. Your problem there is . . well, jeez, look around. You're treating completely different products like they're the same thing. Not exactly a new problem, either, but it sure is interesting how it's compounded since the great "financialization" experiment in American capitalism circa 1974, and with a whopper of a sequel post-2008. I am out of my sandbox here, but if I was a betting man, I would put the root cause of this nonsense in this bucket, i.e., lowering apparent risk (by making things look similar) so as to meet requirements of issuing larger financial instruments (bonds, etc).