Editing Openai/69109937-2170-8005-9304-da49840bb5b9 (section)

==== What we do not have publicly: ====
* A peer-reviewed, independent paper that says: “POET’s interposer achieves X dB interface loss vs Y dB for an actively aligned reference, under identical conditions.”

We have:
* Company slide decks and marketing claims (low-loss waveguides, “lowest coupling loss in industry”). ECOC<ref>{{cite web|title=ECOC|url=https://www.ecocexhibition.com/wp-content/uploads/POET-presentation-ECOC2023-RK-sharing.pdf|publisher=ecocexhibition.com|access-date=2025-11-10}}</ref>
* A few data points quoted in investor channels (0.5 dB vertical coupling). reddit.com<ref>{{cite web|title=reddit.com|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/POETTechnologiesInc/comments/pq39df/our_waveguides_are_2x_as_efficient_as_industry/|publisher=reddit.com|access-date=2025-11-10}}</ref>
* Evidence that top-tier customers are sampling and designing in POET engines for 400G/800G and AI applications, which indirectly confirms that their effective coupling + power budget is competitive. semiconductor-today.com<ref>{{cite web|title=semiconductor-today.com|url=https://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items/2025/mar/poet-240325.shtml|publisher=semiconductor-today.com|access-date=2025-11-10}}</ref>

If you want to be really strict as an investor or engineer, the key things to watch are:
# Hard numbers in future conference papers or app notes: - Measured coupling loss per interface (laser→interposer, interposer→SiPh, interposer→fiber) - Across temperature, aging, and volume.
# Comparisons to reference designs: - For example, “same laser, same fiber, active vs our passive approach”.
# Customer disclosures: - Sometimes an OEM will say “this engine achieves X dB link margin at Y reach with Z power”, which lets you back-calculate approximate coupling losses.