提出量化生存模型预测不确定性的方法，揭示多模型对设备故障风险预测差异大。

In many applications, especially those involving prediction, models may yield near-optimal performance yet significantly disagree on individual-level outcomes. This phenomenon, known as predictive multiplicity, has been formally defined in binary, probabilistic, and multi-target classification, and undermines the reliability of predictive systems. However, its implications remain unexplored in the context of survival analysis, which involves estimating the time until a failure or similar event while properly handling censored data. We frame predictive multiplicity as a critical concern in survival-based models and introduce formal measures -- ambiguity, discrepancy, and obscurity -- to quantify it. This is particularly relevant for downstream tasks such as maintenance scheduling, where precise individual risk estimates are essential. Understanding and reporting predictive multiplicity helps build trust in models deployed in high-stakes environments. We apply our methodology to benchmark datasets from predictive maintenance, extending the notion of multiplicity to survival models. Our findings show that ambiguity steadily increases, reaching up to 40-45% of observations; discrepancy is lower but exhibits a similar trend; and obscurity remains mild and concentrated in a few models. These results demonstrate that multiple accurate survival models may yield conflicting estimations of failure risk and degradation progression for the same equipment. This highlights the need to explicitly measure and communicate predictive multiplicity to ensure reliable decision-making in process health management.