When the March 1922 BuAer designation system was first introduced, the BuAer regarded manufacturer codes as important enough to place them first - followed by a role ('class') code and type number. [1] In 1923, that order would be reversed - eg: the Curtiss-designed CS-1 and CS-2 becoming SC-1 and SC-2. But, note that, despite the CS being series-built by the Glenn L. Martin Company, the 'C' for Curtiss manufacturer code was retained.
Curtiss had refused to cooperate with this 'license-production'. As a result, Martin was left to reverse-engineer their CS from Curtiss-made components. And, invariably, Martin introduced its own, preferred manufacturing techniques to the type. Now, keeping 'C' for Curtiss was not a big deal since Martin was the only firm building the CS. It became an issue whenever multiple airframers were contracted to produce copies of the same aircraft design for the USN.
As an example, take a more widely-produced airframe like that of the Curtiss HS-2L - which were supplied to the USN by Curtiss itself, LWF, Standard, Gallaudet, Boeing, and Loughead. Techniques (and materials) used to build those airframes will have varied between each of these manufacturers. That may matter little to crews or staff directing those flying boats to specific missions. But the variety of manufacturing techniques will certainly create challenges for maintainers. Better to know about differences ahead of time before executing a hull repair or know which stores to draw from before replacing a widget that varies between different makers.
___________________________________
[1] BTW, the original 1911–1914 USN aircraft designation system employed a manufacturer code followed by a delivery sequence number. No role or class type prefix was used.
