A technology readiness level defence claim answers a question about engineering maturity in a test environment. It does not answer the question a procurement officer is usually asking, which is whether a military has used the thing and who published an account of it. The two are routinely conflated in pitch decks, and the conflation is easy to unwind once the scales are read as their authors wrote them.
This distinction is the operating principle of the Israeli Defence-AI Deployment Index. The index grades 50 companies on published evidence of procurement or use. It records no readiness levels at all, and this article explains why.
What a readiness level actually measures
Technology readiness levels originated at NASA in the 1970s as a common language for programme managers assessing dissimilar technologies, and were extended to a nine-level scale in the 1990s. NASA's published definitions run from TRL 1, basic principles observed, to TRL 9, the actual system proven through successful mission operations. The intermediate levels each describe a pairing: the fidelity of the article under test and the fidelity of the environment it is tested in.
That pairing is the whole content of the scale. A readiness level is a statement about a demonstration. It says what was built and where it was exercised. It says nothing about who owns it, whether anyone bought it, or what happened afterwards.
The scales are not identical, and the differences bite
Three scales are in common use and they are not interchangeable. NASA's is the origin. ISO 16290:2013 defines TRLs and their assessment criteria and is, by its own scope statement, applicable primarily to space system hardware, with TRL 9 described as flight proven. The European Commission publishes its own definitions in the Horizon Europe General Annexes, where TRL 7 is a system prototype demonstration in an operational environment, TRL 8 is system complete and qualified, and TRL 9 is the actual system proven in an operational environment.
Read those three TRL 9 definitions together and the problem is visible. All of them are anchored to a demonstration in an operational environment. None of them requires a customer. A system can reach the top of any of these scales in a trial conducted by its own manufacturer on a range, with no procurement and no user.
The EU scale also introduces a parenthetical for key enabling technologies, where the reference environment becomes an industrially relevant one. A vendor citing TRL 6 under the European framework may mean something materially different from a vendor citing TRL 6 under the NASA framework. Ask which scale.
Who assigns the number
Usually the vendor. There is no registry, no certificate and no default independent assessor. Where a formal technology readiness assessment does occur, it is conducted by or for the acquiring organisation, and the US Government Accountability Office published a best-practice guide for exactly that purpose in January 2020, noting in the process that relatively few federal agencies had guides for assessing a technology's maturity and its readiness for integration into a larger programme.
The GAO guide is useful to a buyer for a reason beyond its procedure. It exists because immature technologies inserted into acquisition programmes have been a recurring source of delay and cost growth. That is the risk a readiness level is designed to manage. It is a programme-risk instrument, and it was never designed to certify that anything has been fielded.
Three questions convert a bare number into information. Which scale. Which element of the system, since a readiness level applies to a defined technology element rather than to a company. And who assessed it, against what evidence, on what date.
What a readiness level leaves out
Four things, all of which matter more to a buyer than the number.
Integration. A high level for a component says nothing about the system readiness of the assembly it sits in, and integration is where most programmes lose time.
Scale. A prototype proven in an operational environment has not been produced in quantity, and manufacturing readiness is a separate scale entirely.
Sustainment. Nothing in the scale addresses spares, training, obsolescence or software update paths over a service life.
Use. This is the decisive one. No level on any of the three scales requires that a military organisation took delivery and employed the system. That is a different fact, established by a different kind of source.
How the index draws the line
The index grades on four published levels, and each one names the type of source required. The difference from a readiness level is visible in the entries.
Globes reported that the IDF is using Axon Vision's AI against drones. Breaking Defense reported that SMARTSHOOTER's fire-control system was seeing expanded US Army use. Those are reports by named outlets about what a military did, which is what places both companies in the operational band. No readiness level was consulted and none would have changed the grade.
The contrast at the other end is equally clear. Sightec appears in the index at the claimed level, on the basis of an announcement published through the Starburst accelerator describing, in its own headline wording, "over 3,000 battle-proven deployments" of the company's visual navigation technology. That is a large number attached to a serious-sounding phrase, and it is a company-sourced announcement with no named military customer and no independent account. The index records it as a claim, not as use. A single credible third-party report would move the entry, as the grading-movement piece sets out, and the wider problem with that class of phrasing is treated in the analysis of the battle-tested claim.
The same reasoning explains why 37 of 50 companies sit below the operational band, a distribution examined in the deployment evidence gap. The practical method for testing a specific vendor's paper trail is in the verification guide, and the companies with documented operational use are listed in full here.
Limits of this reading
Readiness levels are genuinely useful for the purpose they were designed for. A programme office deciding whether to insert a technology into a development schedule needs exactly this instrument, and the GAO guide is a serious document. Nothing here argues that the scale is worthless; the argument is that it answers a different question.
Nor does the absence of published deployment evidence establish that a system has not been fielded. Classified programmes, undisclosed customers and Hebrew-language-only coverage all produce thin public records for capable products. The index measures what has been published, by whom, and when, and it does not measure performance, maturity or fitness for any purpose.
Frequently asked questions
Does TRL 9 mean a system is in service?
No. NASA, ISO 16290 and the European Commission all define the top level around proof in an operational environment. None of them requires that a customer bought the system or that a military organisation used it. Those are separate facts requiring separate evidence.
Who certifies a technology readiness level?
There is no central certifying body. Vendors commonly self-assess. Where a formal assessment is made, it is normally commissioned by the acquiring organisation, and the US Government Accountability Office published a best-practice guide for conducting one in 2020.
Are the NASA, ISO and EU readiness scales the same?
They are aligned in structure but not identical in wording or scope. ISO 16290 is written primarily for space system hardware. The Horizon Europe definitions add a variant reference environment for key enabling technologies. Always ask which scale a claim uses.
Sources
- NASA, Technology Readiness Levels
- NASA Earth Science Technology Office, Definition of Technology Readiness Levels
- ISO 16290:2013, Space systems — Definition of the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and their criteria of assessment
- European Commission, Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026–2027, General Annexes
- US Government Accountability Office, Technology Readiness Assessment Guide (GAO-20-48G), January 2020
- Globes, IDF using Axon Vision's AI to combat drones
- Breaking Defense, Israel's SMARTSHOOTER says US Army expanding use of high-tech fire control system, June 2025
- Starburst, Sightec announces deployments of its GPS-free visual navigation technology (company-sourced announcement)
Independent publication of idf.ai. Not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to the Israel Defense Forces, the Israeli Ministry of Defense, or any government body. Compiled entirely from publicly published sources. No classified, restricted or non-public information. Listed companies may dispute any entry: send the published source that contradicts it and the entry will be amended or removed.