Repair, Replace & Retire Scoring

A verdict only holds up in front of a director if the arithmetic behind it can be read out loud and defended line by line — which is exactly why this module is built the way it is, not as a black box but as a fixed set of rules anyone can check against the work order log.

The Arithmetic Behind the Verdict

Every score starts from the same five inputs, and each one either adds to the total or, in one case, subtracts from it:

• A maintenance-to-purchase cost ratio at or above 50% adds 3 points; at or above 30% it adds 2.
• Failures accelerating — more breakdown and corrective work orders in the last 12 months than the prior 12, with at least 3 in the recent window — adds 2 points. If failures aren't accelerating but there are still 6 or more in the last 12 months, that adds 1.
• Downtime loss at or above 25% of purchase cost adds 2 points.
• Ten or more years since installation adds 1 point.
• Active warranty or AMC coverage subtracts 1 point.

A total of 5 or more is a Replace verdict, 3 or more is Review, and anything below that is Repair — with minus one as the floor. Note that PM and PdM work orders never count as failures; only breakdowns and corrective jobs move that part of the score, which keeps a well-maintained asset from being penalised for the preventive work that's supposed to keep it running.

Why Fixed Weights Are the Point, Not a Missing Feature

There's no settings screen for these thresholds, and that's deliberate rather than an oversight. A maintenance head walking into a capex conversation needs a number that means the same thing every time it's cited — not a score that shifts because someone adjusted a weight last quarter. The trade-off is that AssetAI won't run an NPV or discounted cash flow against a quoted replacement machine, and it won't estimate remaining useful life; it's arithmetic on records that already exist, not a forecast. Finance teams building a payback case against a specific vendor quote will need to take the ratio and failure history from this card and build that model separately — the pricing page and use-cases library cover how AssetAI's other modules feed that kind of downstream analysis. For plants formalising their reliability programme against a recognised framework, it's also worth checking how RRR scoring sits next to ISO standards work and broader TPM practice.

Where the Score Breaks Down in Practice

The single biggest risk to trusting this card isn't the formula — it's incomplete asset records, which is a common gap across Indian plants still moving off paper logs or spreadsheets, as the What is a CMMS primer covers in more detail. A few practical points worth flagging to anyone rolling this out:

• The cost ratio is cumulative across the asset's entire life, not a rolling window, so it only ever climbs — a machine can't "recover" a lower ratio even after a quiet year.
• Because the ratio needs purchase cost to mean anything, an asset entered without it will show the ratio as unavailable rather than a misleading zero, which is the honest failure mode but still means someone has to go back and fill the field in.
• Downtime cost per hour has to be entered for the downtime-loss weight to fire at all — plants in capital-intensive sectors, per the sector patterns in IBEF's industry data, tend to have the most to gain from getting this one right, since downtime cost is often where the real replacement case lives.

Numbers only carry weight when the plant's records are clean enough to trust them, and that is where most of the real work in using this module actually happens. The two sections below cover what a maintenance head needs to do around the arithmetic, not inside it.

Where the Verdict Actually Lives

The score isn't a report you generate and file away — it renders directly on the asset's History card inside AssetAI, sitting alongside the work order trail that produced it. That placement matters for how it gets used:

• Open any asset and the panel is already there — red, amber or green — with the reasons printed underneath, so nobody has to re-derive the argument from raw logs before a meeting.
• The daily alert sweep watches for repeat-offender assets — machines throwing the same fault repeatedly — and routes those alerts back to this same card, so a pattern that might otherwise sit buried in a maintenance log surfaces as a scored verdict instead of a vague complaint.
• Because the card is per-asset, there's no separate RRR dashboard to check every morning; the verdict shows up exactly where the maintenance history already lives, which keeps it part of the normal workflow rather than a bolt-on report. If you want to see how this sits next to the rest of the platform, the full feature set lays out where History cards, work orders and alerts connect.

Getting the Inputs Right Before You Trust the Verdict

The arithmetic is only as good as three fields: purchase cost, installation date and downtime cost per hour. Plants that skip these during asset onboarding — common when registers are migrated in a hurry from spreadsheets or a legacy CMMS — will see the ratio branch sit out of the score entirely, because AssetAI states plainly that the ratio is unavailable rather than guessing at one.

• Fill in purchase cost at the same time you create the asset record, not after the first Replace conversation comes up — the ratio sums every historical work order the moment the field exists, so backfilling it later still recalculates correctly.
• Log breakdown and corrective work orders distinctly from PM and PdM ones; only breakdown and corrective entries count as failures, so a plant that logs everything under one generic category will understate the failure trend regardless of how bad it actually is.
• Keep downtime cost per hour current — it drives the loss-based points independently of the failure count, and it's easy to leave at a default value long after shift patterns or output value have changed.
• Review warranty and AMC end dates in the registry; an expired contract still marked active will quietly subtract a point the asset no longer deserves.

None of this requires new process for its own sake — most Indian manufacturing plants tracking OEE or running a TPM programme already collect these fields for other reasons, and the scoring module simply reuses them. If your registry is missing them across the board, that's a data-quality conversation worth having before the first Replace verdict reaches a director's desk — book a demo and we can walk through what your current asset data supports.