Yeah, I know. They only got one wafer!?! Zero scope for comparing wafers within a batch, or dealing with unlikely problems. As with the dog ate my homework, this sounds like a series of improbable events that ought never to have arisen, because someone anticipated the need and the seriousness of the testing. And AP is normally into that kind of preparedness.
From 2015 AGM
" ... I would like to take a moment to refresh memories as to the four‐phase plan. The commercialization or development plan (we use the terms synonymously) was devised to transform our playing prototype into a commercially viable mass produced product. While the functional prototype proved the principles of a working technology, the transition to a commercial product entailed an immense undertaking that necessitated changing many critical dimensions, the electrical addressing scheme, the functional algorithms, the assembly process, the package, the method and methodologies of testing, and of course the fabrication process of the MEMS chips. The shear magnitude and complexity of such an undertaking necessitated division of the many, many tasks into manageable parts. At the time Fred challenged us to devise a plan that of course achieves the technical requirements in the fastest most efficient manner possible; but the real challenge he posed was to produce an end result that is not a technology that can be produced ‐ but a product that is produced. The approach we took was to develop, debug and de‐risk both the product and the mass fabrication process simultaneously. This meant we were essentially building the product from the ground up, layer‐by‐layer, using mass production techniques; as apposed to developing prototype after prototype in a development lab. I mention this because we are aware that the natural tendency is to evaluate the results of any given development phase based upon the outcome of a newly produced generation of prototype. Our development plan isn’t designed that way, we do not build subsequent generations of prototypes, and therefore the outcome of each development phase needed to be evaluated differently. As has been reported, the third phase entailed receipt of completed MEMS structures with all its functional layers. The structures were meticulously and exhaustively tested and measured. We took tens of millions micro scale measurements, many of which demand synchronized precision measured in nanoseconds. We quite recently produced all the prerequisites required in order to commence the fourth and final phase of the development plan. ..."
They built their own testing facility, and it was clearly a significant effort, and it sounds like they were necessarily pretty thorough. So they very clearly know what they are doing, and what they have to do to get what they need done expeditiously.
From 2016 AGM
"... The effort to build a MEMS chip requires very close collaboration with MEMS foundries as unlike most conventional semiconductors which can take a chip design and apply fabricate processes with exceptional precision, the fabrication of any MEMS devices require the development of a specific and dedicated process flow for that particular device. MEMS devices are produced in semiconductor fabs, using well-known and proven semiconductor equipment and processes. Although MEMS development can be done in research facilities (which is where we conducted our early research and development) we elected to conduct the commercialization plan in a mass production MEMS fab.Since mass production fabs are not oriented to accommodate the flexibility required in development, timelines tend to take a little longer. On the flip side this approach dramatically streamlines and accelerates the transition to mass production. Because we don’t own our own MEMS fab, we are what is known as a fabless company which establishes a tight dependency on the fabrication partner. On the flip side we didn't have to hit shareholders up for many hundreds of millions of dollars required to build and run a fab. The high cost of setting up and running a MEMS fab dictates that Fab’s must carefully select which companies they work with, which projects they undertake and the priority of their resources. We of course would prefer our fabs’ to be exclusively dedicated to our requirements, but their economic realities dictate otherwise. Ultimately living by their rules translates to elongated timelines tend to be elongated as the fabs juggle their resources to efficiently accommodate a diversity of projects.Of course all this get resolved in mass production phase when long term planning methodologies are implemented but in the interim the fabrication cycles are slow and occasionally fluctuate. An additional challenge associated with MEMS development is that virtually any change to the device, no matter how minute, alters the mechanical behavior of the device. This can be critical as a few nanometers can change electrical response of sound pressure levels. While each process in of itself is predictable the integration of processes such as deposition, annealing, etching, coating etc.. can produce somewhat unpredictable results. This reality necessitates that MEMS be developed using the trial and error methodology - measuring, dissecting, re-designing and re-fabricating over and over until the process as a whole is fine tuned to meet specific objectives....
...As has been documented we are well into the fourth and final phase of the commercialization plan. We are about two-thirds through a fabrication run with a particular fab that is using a fabrication process flow that has been tried, tested, and refined. We perpetually monitor and test the results as for example is evident by the recent published results whereby we cycled 4th phase test structures over a trillion times – without a single failure. Additionally we implemented a risk mitigating approach to the fourth phase - for example we decided to independently fabricate 8 separate batches of wafers, and each batch of wafers holds a number of wafers in reserve before undergoing critical fabrications steps as to allow for the possibility of taking corrective measures should it be deemed necessary. The accompanying technologies of the product are also in similar advanced stages. The ASIC driver which provisions the necessary signal to drive the MEMS using commonly available device voltages, as well as the chip package, and its assembly process, are harmoniously advancing into their final stages. In fact just a few days ago we reached a major milestone on this front as our second generation ASIC was shipped to the packaging house for integration into the chip package. What all this means is that barring an unforeseen event we are more or less on pace to meet the objectives and timelines predicted in previous public announcements.
What are those objectives... well after receipt and verification of the chips we plan to demonstrate the technology at first in the confines of our labs and only to a very select group of high value customers, industry experts and industry analysts. This private demonstration is planned to be followed with the delivery of fully packaged engineering samples to customers for independent test and validation. ...
Then add this little doozie: do you remember this from 2017 AGM:
"... A few words about our cooperation with Tower Semiconductor; Yole’ the leading global research firm in the field of MEMS points out that only 2 of the top 30 MEMS companies are fabless. A.M. Fitzgerald a leading Silicon Valley consultancy firm in the field of MEMS attributes this phenomenon to the critical importance of information exchange between the involved parties. As many of you know we benefit from being in close physical proximity to Tower’s fab and their process engineering teams.Our engineering teams are able often and on demand in order to deal in a common language with any and every issue as, or even before, it arises. This dynamic affords both companies unprecedented opportunity to avoid missteps while streamlining development of the fabrication processes. If the research I mentioned before means anything it leads us to believe we have dramatically enhanced our ability to succeed, as in many ways the result of our close working relationship with Tower allows us to enjoy the many benefits of having our own fab without actually having to invest the billions of dollars needed to own and run one. ..."
AP's lab is literally just up the road from TowerJazz's FAB. One would assume therefore that it was just a simple matter of getting in your car and going up the road to get another wafer from the same batch. So how come it takes so long to do that?
Clearly there is more involved than doing that. Maybe they did not leave any wafers from this batch run? Maybe they are all committed to next steps? Maybe they are not using TJ for this? Maybe it has to come from another TJ site, or even from another FAB entirely.
I have no doubt that AP's staff are very good and have got us this far in what is an exceptional effort. I believe the results are going to be worth it, and I for one am certainly not spooked into reconsidering my investment. But I am not impressed by this announcement. It may not contain any inaccuracies, but I doubt if it tells the whole story.
Like the teacher waiting for the homework assignment I think we need a bit more disclosure on all this. It is too brief so close to the AGM. The AGM will need to fill this release out with a lot fuller account I think. We need to know better exactly where we are right now, because from history we know that the flow of information clams up somewhat after the AGM. AGMs are about accountability. So hopefully the AGM will be the occasion to gouge a bit more detail and context out of Fred and his team.
(20min delay)