Prospective valuation (IATE) doesn't chime with allocation. I agree that componentized is neater American-speak for per component or per item.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 8 hrs (2020-04-10 08:32:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

As there seems to be a mental block about this answer, let's take an example:

depreciation may be charged 'prospectively' to items ('components') of office or industrial plant, machinery & equipment worth $ 10,000 on a writing-down allowance of, say, 10% a year. After 10 years the asset is worth nothing. If scrapped at a loss, it goes down in the accounts as a liability.

If sold at a profit (with a balancing allowance possibly subject to capital gain tax in the UK vs. a balancing charge of dep./ loss) the actuarial projection method would - prospectively again - keep the book value on the assets side of the bal. sheet.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 jour 19 heures (2020-04-10 19:32:24 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I wasn't getting at you, Josh, but at the usual stonewallers, including a qualified accountant (!) and (accounts-unqualified) tactical voters for the first answer.

Prospective method IMO is ambiguous for either a forward-looking or a tentatively usable method, whilst prospective-valuation method *for* allocation may indeed work better than a 'prospective valuation for allocation' when such valuation may not be carried out exclusively for such purpose e.g. of calculating the depreciation.