Section 842 of the FY2024 NDAA (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 4865) imposes three independent tests on advanced batteries entering new defense programs after January 1, 2028: non-FEOC final assembly, more than 95% of functional-cell-component costs from non-FEOC origins, and no FEOC-licensed production technology. A companion piece treats the waiver architecture and implementation machinery. This piece is narrower. It maps four companies against four compliance dimensions, labels every claim by source tier, and states where the evidence stops.
The evidence stops early and often.
No DFARS clause, Federal Register notice, or acquisition.gov implementation artifact for § 4865 has appeared. QPL-32565 lists zero qualified products from zero sources. No DLA solicitation specifically requesting § 4865-compliant batteries was found in checked public routes.
The matrix below is the scanning tool. The sections that follow are the evidence behind each cell.
Summary Matrix
| Dimension | Packet Digital | Forge Nano / Samsung SDI | EnerSys / Bren-Tronics | Ultralife |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume pathway | $36.8M in government-verified SBIR Phase III orders (against $50M APFIT ceiling) | Pre-production; 3 GWh announced, 2028 target; no DoD production contract | Recurring DLA/Navy production contracts across multiple chemistries | Recurring DLA/Navy production contracts; $168M conformal wearable IDIQ ceiling, $358K obligated |
| Qualification status | SBIR Phase III; no QPL | No QPL; no DoD contract; no FAT | Product designed to MIL-PRF-32565C (company product page); no QPL row | FAT completed on conformal wearable (company-reported); no 6T product; no QPL row |
| Cost-origin proof | None public | None public | None public | None public |
| Technology/IP exposure | Low visible risk (Fargo-based, domestic pouch cell) | U.S.-origin ALD IP + Korean-origin Samsung SDI cell design IP (neither FEOC); upstream CAM/anode/electrolyte supply chain opaque | Cell sourcing for 6T product unspecified (internal manufacture vs. purchased cells not stated) | PRC manufacturing subsidiary on record; rechargeable cells sourced from external "qualified cell manufacturers" |
Packet Digital
Volume pathway. The strongest evidence here is government-verified. A DoW contract notice dated April 6, 2026 awarded $27M firm-fixed-price (N6833526F1047) under SBIR Phase III Topic N07-160 for pilot production through LRIP-2 of pouch-cell lithium-ion batteries at Fargo, North Dakota. USAspending confirms the matching award at $26,999,998.60 with FY2025 Defense-Wide procurement funds obligated at award. A second DoW contract notice dated May 4, 2026 added $9.8M (N6833526F1090) for manufacturing equipment installation and raw-material procurement under the same BOA, with work in Fargo, Minneapolis, and Gainesville, Georgia. Both orders reference APFIT and domestic production for DoW applications.
The "up to $50M APFIT" figure comes from a company release and a congressional release dated November 26, 2025. No standalone $50M award record appears in USAspending. Verified obligations stand at $36.8M against that ceiling.
Qualification status. SBIR Phase III is a production-pathway mechanism. It is not a QPL listing. It is not a MIL-PRF qualification. No Packet Digital product appears on QPL-32565 or any adjacent DLA battery QPL in the checked record. The SBIR Phase III pathway is legitimate for UAS battery packs under Topic N07-160, but that legitimacy does not extend to qualification against MIL-PRF-32565, and the distinction matters for § 4865 compliance assessment.
Cost-origin proof. Nothing public. No disclosure addresses the 95% non-FEOC functional-cell-component cost test, names cell-component suppliers, or provides a cost-origin workpaper. The contract notices describe domestic production in Fargo. Domestic final assembly and domestic component-cost origin are independent compliance facts, and the public record establishes only the first.
Technology/IP exposure. No public evidence of FEOC technology licensing. Fargo-based small business producing pouch cells domestically. Visible risk is low on this dimension. No explicit non-FEOC technology certification exists in any checked source, but nothing in the record raises a flag either.
Forge Nano / Samsung SDI
Volume pathway. Pre-production. No cells manufactured. A June 25, 2026 SEC exhibit establishes the commercial structure: a 3 GWh/year Morrisville, North Carolina facility targeting 2028 manufacturing start, $300–330M investment with a $100M DOE grant, and Samsung SDI as operational partner with a conditional procurement agreement. The filing contains "defense battery applications" and "domestic defense customers" as forward-looking market positioning language. No DoD production contract exists. Forge Nano's SBIR portfolio, as covered in issue #6, consists entirely of R&D-scale awards: 10 Phase I, 1 Phase II, a 10% conversion rate against typical 40–50%. No production contract or recurring procurement action appears in the checked record.
The SEC filing establishes legally binding commercial structure. It does not constitute defense evidence. The gap between those two categories is measured in specific artifacts, and none of them exist here yet.
Qualification status. No QPL listing. No MIL-PRF qualification. No FAT results. No program-of-record attachment. The facility does not yet produce cells.
Cost-origin proof. This is where the opacity is most consequential, because the entire compliance posture of this facility depends on a supply chain that has not been disclosed. The SEC exhibit states the facility will leverage "Samsung SDI's manufacturing expertise and supply-chain pricing." A Forge Nano investor presentation filed April 28, 2026 describes Atomic Armor as improving battery performance:
"without changing the incoming supply chain or the outgoing manufacturing process"
Read that sentence carefully. It means the supply chain is Samsung SDI's supply chain, adopted intact. No cathode active material, anode, separator, or electrolyte supplier is named for Morrisville in any checked SEC filing, company page, or press release. The Forge Nano website claims "100% U.S. based manufacturing and supply chain integrity" without providing statutory § 4865 component-cost detail.
Samsung SDI is Korean, not FEOC. The compliance question is not Samsung SDI itself but where Samsung SDI's supply chain sources CAM, anode graphite, and electrolyte solvents. When a domestic manufacturer adopts a Korean partner's formulations and supply chain wholesale, the 95% non-FEOC cost test becomes nearly unassessable from public sources. CAM sourcing is consistently the decisive and most opaque variable, and it is opaque here.
Technology/IP exposure. Two IP streams converge at Morrisville. Forge Nano's ALD coating technology traces to CU Boulder/ALD NanoSolutions lineage, confirmed by CU Boulder Venture Partners, with an Argonne exclusive license and 200+ patents from U.S.-based inventors. Samsung SDI's cell design and formulation IP is Korean-origin. Neither is FEOC. The statutory test asks whether production technology is licensed from an FEOC entity, not whether it is foreign, and on that specific test, visible risk is low provided the only foreign IP contributor remains Samsung SDI. The SEC exhibit does not separate the two IP streams for compliance purposes, and no FEOC technology-license certification appears in any checked filing. The unresolved exposure sits in the upstream supply chain, not the IP provenance.
EnerSys / Bren-Tronics
Volume pathway. EnerSys is an incumbent defense battery supplier with recurring production procurement at meaningful scale. USAspending shows multiple 2024–2026 Bren-Tronics Defense LLC awards from DLA for battery storage in the $2M–$5M range, active IDVs including CSEL batteries, and EnerSys Energy Products Inc. recurring DLA delivery orders in the $2.8M–$4.6M range. Navy delivery orders for submarine battery production (LA, VA, and OH class) run $3.8M–$4.2M per order. EnerSys's FY2026 10-K discloses the Bren-Tronics acquisition at $206.4M and describes Bren-Tronics as a Commack, New York manufacturer of portable power solutions including lithium batteries for military and defense applications.
Recurring DLA and Navy procurement across multiple chemistries and form factors. The volume pathway is established.
Qualification status. Bren-Tronics markets the BT-70939M-TFEC as an "Ultra High Capacity 6T Battery" designed to meet MIL-PRF-32565C requirements. That language appears on a company product page. A company product page is not a QPL-32565 qualification row. No EnerSys or Bren-Tronics product appears on QPL-32565 in the checked DLA ASSIST record. The 10-K does not disclose a specific MIL-PRF-32565 qualification or QPL listing. The submarine battery contracts represent a separate product line and chemistry (SVRLA) from the 6T Li-ion pathway relevant to § 4865.
Cost-origin proof. Nothing public. The 10-K contains no § 4865 compliance representation, no FEOC cost-origin statement, no functional-cell-component sourcing disclosure. For a company with this volume of recurring defense battery procurement, the absence of any public cost-origin evidence is the most consequential gap in this entire assessment. EnerSys has been shipping defense batteries for years. If any company on this list should be able to produce a cost-origin workpaper, it is this one. That none is public tells you more about the state of the certification infrastructure than about EnerSys.
Technology/IP exposure. The 10-K does not address FEOC technology licensing. Whether Bren-Tronics manufactures 6T lithium cells internally at Commack or purchases them from external suppliers is not stated in any checked public source. Internal cell manufacture and external cell procurement carry fundamentally different FEOC exposure profiles. The public record does not resolve which applies, and that unresolved question is the operative gap on this dimension.
Ultralife
Volume pathway. Ultralife's Q1 2026 10-Q reports $13.65M in Government/Defense battery revenue for the quarter ended March 31, 2026. Total Government/Defense revenue across all segments was $16.94M, representing 36% of total revenue. USAspending confirms a $5.2M DLA award for BA-5390 non-rechargeable lithium manganese dioxide military batteries, plus Navy purchase orders for lithium batteries and delivery orders for universal vehicle adapter products. The BA-5390A/U product page names over 50 military platform applications including AN/PRC-117G and Javelin CLU.
The company announced a conformal wearable battery IDIQ from the U.S. Army in May 2021, ceiling of $168M during the three-year base period with potential for up to $350M in option years. USAspending shows the matching IDV (W91CRB21D0016) and a $358K FAT delivery order. That is 0.2% of the base-period ceiling obligated against a single FAT-related order. A $168M ceiling with $358K obligated is a contract structure, not a production program.
The volume pathway is real for non-rechargeable military batteries and conformal wearable development. It does not extend to 6T Li-ion.
Qualification status. Ultralife reports successful completion of First Article Testing for the conformal wearable battery program (company-reported). The UBBL35 product page lists NSN 6140-01-625-7254 and states the product is designed to meet MIL-STD-810 and MIL-STD-461E. No Ultralife product appears on QPL-32565. No 6T product appears in the public catalog.
Cost-origin proof. Nothing public. Neither the 10-Q nor the FY2025 10-K contains a § 4865 compliance representation or functional-cell-component cost-origin disclosure.
Technology/IP exposure. Ultralife's public record raises a question on this dimension that the other three do not. The FY2025 10-K discloses that Ultralife acquired ABLE New Energy Co., Ltd., a lithium battery manufacturer in Shenzhen, China, in 2006, and lists "unique risks associated with our China operations" among risk factors. The same 10-K states that Ultralife's rechargeable batteries comprise "cells manufactured by qualified cell manufacturers," meaning external cell sourcing for at least some rechargeable product lines. The company FAQ states that XR123A and UB123A cells are manufactured in the United States. Whether any defense-destined rechargeable product uses cells from the PRC subsidiary or from other FEOC-adjacent sources is not stated in any checked filing.
The corporate structure includes a PRC manufacturing entity. That fact alone does not establish an FEOC technology-license violation under § 4865. But it is material to any assessment, and the public record does not resolve it.
What the Pattern Shows
Cost-origin proof is blank across all four candidates. Zero for four. The gap is structural, not an artifact of selective sourcing or limited research access. No DFARS clause defines how a contractor would certify compliance with the 95% non-FEOC component-cost test. No contracting officer has a verification mechanism to apply. No Federal Register notice has proposed one. The proof stack nobody can file remains unfiled because the filing infrastructure does not exist. Assessment requires disclosure, and disclosure requires a regulatory mechanism that has not been built.
On volume pathway, the spread is wide. EnerSys/Bren-Tronics has years of recurring DLA and Navy procurement across multiple chemistries and form factors. Ultralife reports $13.65M in quarterly Government/Defense battery revenue and holds an Army conformal wearable IDIQ. Packet Digital has $36.8M in government-verified SBIR Phase III orders explicitly tied to APFIT and domestic cell manufacturing, with production underway on a 24-month timeline. Forge Nano/Samsung SDI has announced 3 GWh of capacity at Morrisville with a 2028 target and carries only R&D-scale DoD contracts in the checked record.
Qualification status is uniformly weak when measured against QPL-32565, for the straightforward reason that QPL-32565 has no qualified products from any manufacturer. The qualification infrastructure and the supplier base are developing on independent timelines. Eighteen months from the January 2028 new-program deadline, the ladder has rungs but no top.
- QPL-32565 still empty: Army SBIR topic A254-P050 closed in May 2026 seeking 6T battery improvements against MIL-PRF-32565 requirements, but the public QPL still shows zero qualified products from zero manufacturers.
- Adjacent waiver tightening: The July 20, 2026 executive order on defense supply chains and critical materials targets 10 U.S.C. 4872 covered-material waivers with mitigation-plan requirements from January 2027, signaling where battery waiver discipline may head.
- Section 805 as comparator: DoW launched a Section 805 waiver website on June 30, 2026 with a structured process for transitioning away from 1260H-listed suppliers, the kind of visible compliance infrastructure Section 4865 still lacks.
- Blue UAS battery gap: The DCMA Blue List grew to 71 public UAV rows as of July 24, 2026 while still exposing no battery supplier, cell chemistry, or component-origin fields in the public endpoint.