We anticipate that our tool and definition of CIL will be used in verification of all safety and mission critical flight systems. NASA has shown themselves to be very amenable to formal methods techniques in the past. Our technical contact within NASA expects such a tool to be used on vehicles targeted at manned space missions as well as mission critical systems such as the rockets, probes, space telescopes, and landers/rovers.
TAM for our work would be the entire software industry. Realistically, we do not have the manpower to target the entirety of the software industry. A more reasonable SAM would be those companies in the software industry where correctness is key, either because bugs are very expensive to fix (Microsoft) or where bugs are disastrous to life and limb (NASA/Boeing/medical device manufacturers). We feel that our realistic SOM is larger software development corporations that would be willing to pay larger amounts for site licenses as well as be willing to hire on verification engineers from our Runtime Verification, Inc. This will allow us to leverage our smaller number of employees in a way that results in maximal possible profits, versus marketing to smaller software developers, which will be less willing to pay for site licenses. We can move into that segment of the market later, once Runtime Verification is able to grow. Initially, we would like to focus on Aerospace companies (Boeing), Automotive (Toyota-ITC, DENSO), Finance (2Sigma), Microsoft (in particularly Windows and Office), Apple (OS X), the US Military, NSA, the large hadron collider, and Facebook (they have already shown themselves amenable to formal methods tools).