But quick trivia for the pro crowd: in a commercial risk assessment, which has the bigger impact on real-world loss prevention — UL 437 cylinder resistance or true key control with restricted keyways — and why? I’m pressure-testing a 120-door retrofit in Chicago and want to validate which lever moves risk most before we lock the spec.
In practice, key control moves loss more than UL 437 — “keys walk, picks don’t” — since most incidents stem from stray/duped keys, not defeated cylinders. On a 120‑door retrofit, roll out a restricted keyway with signed authorization and a key audit now, then reserve UL 437 for perimeter and high‑value rooms; high contractor churn?
Go key control first: restricted keyway with signed authorization, serialized keys, and your distributor keeping the issuance log; that trims most leakage from ex-staff and contractors (keys seem to multiply when nobody’s watching). @clarke_j92 has the right read on exposure, but I’d still put high‑attack cores on street‑facing perimeter and the MDF/IDF as a hedge against smash‑and‑grab; if budget allows, spec interchangeable cores on those doors for fast rekeys. Any high‑risk rooms or vendor turnover we should size for?
For a 120‑door retrofit in Chicago, I’d weight controlled issuance with proprietary blanks higher than the high‑attack cylinder rating for loss prevention… Practical step: use SFIC/IC so you can swap cores same day after a termination and have the dealer maintain a numbered‑key ledger with manager authorization; alley‑facing exteriors are the exception where beefing up the cylinder spec is worth it. @cwright1972 is on the right track — “lost keys beat fancy ratings every day”; what’s your turnover like?