Resources

Material worth the reading time.

Briefings, evaluation protocols and technical notes for packaging, yield, quality and IT/OT teams assessing an autonomy layer — including the ones that argue against buying one.

A yield ramp curve comparing a conventional multi-quarter ramp against a compressed ramp trajectory.
The curve every packaging organisation is trying to bend. Chipira design illustration.

Briefings

For the people who have to decide

  1. 01 The advanced-packaging bottleneck

    Why back-end capacity now gates the AI compute buildout, and what that means for yield economics on a CoWoS-class package.

  2. 02 Autonomy without losing control

    The graduated-autonomy model explained for a change-control board: gates, envelopes, twin validation, audit and revocation.

  3. 03 Process IP in an AI deployment

    A plain-language architecture note for IP and legal teams on tenancy, edge inference and what does and does not leave the building.

  4. 04 Building the pilot business case

    How to size the value of one yield point on your package family, and how to write a success metric your finance team will accept.

Evaluation tools

Use these on us, and on everyone else

The shadow-mode protocol

A step-by-step protocol for establishing a defensible baseline before any vendor writes to a tool — including how long to run, what to record and how to handle variance.

  • Baseline period sizing
  • Variance and confidence handling
  • Comparison methodology

The vendor question set

Thirty questions for any AI vendor selling into a fab. Roughly a third of them are ones we find uncomfortable, which is why they are worth asking.

  • Measured versus modelled claims
  • Write-back and fail-safe design
  • Data isolation and training scope

Fab-edge readiness checklist

What your OT network, tool interfaces, identity provider and change-control process need to look like before any deployment is realistic.

  • Interface inventory
  • Network segmentation
  • Identity and role mapping

Pilot success-metric template

The structure of a metric that produces a decision: definition, baseline, measurement owner, duration, and what constitutes failure.

  • Single-metric discipline
  • Named measurement owner
  • Pre-agreed failure condition

Editorial position

We publish the arguments against us too

Most vendor resource libraries are a funnel dressed as a service. The material exists to make one conclusion feel inevitable, which is exactly why experienced buyers ignore it.

Ours includes the counter-arguments: the reasons a fab should refuse write-back access, the conditions under which an incumbent’s point tool is the better purchase, and the organisational failure modes that make a pilot inconclusive regardless of the technology.

This is not modesty. A buyer who evaluates us rigorously and still proceeds is a far better customer than one who was persuaded — and a buyer who correctly decides we are wrong for them has saved us both a year.

The questions we get asked most

Technical notes

For engineers

  1. 01 Grounding and citation enforcement

    How retrieval over recipes, specs, design rules and standards is constructed, and why uncited output is rejected rather than surfaced.

  2. 02 Twin validation before write-back

    What the package-and-line twin actually simulates, what it does not, and how its confidence band gates an action.

  3. 03 The supervised-correction flywheel

    How engineer approvals and rejections become labelled data, and how retraining is gated so it cannot silently degrade a line.

  4. 04 Connector fail-safe semantics

    Idempotency, transactional write-back, envelope-breach behaviour and degradation to existing tool control.

  5. 05 Model versioning on a production line

    Immutable releases, per-site pinning, staged rollout and why nothing auto-updates.

  6. 06 Cross-fab learning, contractually

    The mechanism, its value, its risks, and why it is opt-in under a separate agreement rather than a platform default.

Context

Numbers worth carrying into a meeting

  • $30B Advanced-packaging automation, process control, inspection, test and fab software market.
  • ~16% Annual growth, pulled by AI accelerators, HBM and the chiplet transition.
  • $7.5B The segment addressable by autonomous control, packaging vision, yield optimisation and twins.
  • 12+ Tool classes on a typical line — none of which can see the others today.

Chipira’s internal market estimates [ASPIRATIONAL], derived from public segment data.

Send me the document that explains why I should not do this. That is the one I will actually read.

Manufacturing operations directorOSAT, advanced packaging

Composite drawn from design-partner and industry conversations. Illustrative, not a customer endorsement.

Connector coverage across the back end

  • ASMPT
  • BESI
  • Kulicke & Soffa
  • EV Group
  • SUSS MicroTec
  • TOWA
  • Nordson
  • Camtek
  • Onto Innovation
  • Advantest
  • Teradyne
  • Cohu

Vendor-neutral integration over SECS-GEM, tool APIs and OT interfaces. Vendors listed are integration targets for the connector library and are not endorsements or commercial partnerships.

How to get them

Access

Some material is open; some describes deployment specifics and is shared under NDA.

Open
Market briefings, the vendor question set, the pilot success-metric template and the readiness checklist. Ask and we send them.
Under NDA
Architecture and security packs, the API and connector reference, the audit schema and the evaluation methodology.
On request during diligence
Company stage evidence, incorporation detail, sub-processor list and the exit and wind-down terms.
Never
Customer names, package specifics or process data belonging to anyone else. Including yours, later.

Resources

Practical questions

  • For the open material, an email so we can send it. There is no drip sequence attached to it and you can ask us to delete the address afterwards.

  • Yes — the open material is meant to be forwarded to your quality, IT/OT and finance teams. That is who several of the documents are actually written for.

  • Yes. A working session with your process, quality and OT people is usually more useful than the documents alone, and we do not charge for it.

  • The evaluation tools are deliberately vendor-neutral. Use the question set on every vendor in your process, including us.

Start narrow, expand relentlessly

Land one workflow. Own the loop.

A Chipira engagement begins with a single wedge workflow, a shadow-mode baseline and one signed success metric. Everything after that is expansion.