Do RUL explanations hold up? Faithfulness and stability of attributions on C-MAPSS
Deep remaining-useful-life (RUL) models on NASA C-MAPSS are now routine, and so are heatmaps that colour sensors and timesteps. A heatmap that looks mechanical is not the same as an explanation an engineer can act on. We train three standard architectures - a 1D CNN, an LSTM, and a small Transformer encoder - on the official FD001 and FD003 splits with the piecewise RUL cap of 125 cycles and the official PHM08 asymmetric score. We then attach three attribution maps (Integrated Gradients, occlusion, last-layer attention) and evaluate them with the checks the XAI-for-PdM literature still under-reports: deletion/insertion faithfulness, Spearman stability under sensor-scale noise, agreement across training seeds, and cosine consistency inside RUL bins. Prediction error is a prerequisite, not the claim. The headline is which explanation method moves the RUL output when its top cells are removed, and which map survives a 5% input perturbation. Integrated Gradients and occlusion are similarly faithful on the LSTM; Transformer attention is cheap and temporally smooth but weakly faithful. All three maps are almost unchanged under 5% input noise, yet IG/occlusion agree only moderately across two LSTM seeds - stability to sensor jitter is not the same as stability to retraining. A secondary tabular check on the AI4I 2020 failure dataset shows the same deletion pattern for tree importances. We recommend occlusion or IG for any C-MAPSS-style report that will be read by a maintenance engineer, and we treat raw attention weights as a visualisation only.