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

==== Across these “component-level” partners (Mitsubishi, NTT, Sivers, Celestial, Semtech) vs the “module-level” customers (Luxshare, Mentech, FIT, BFYY), coupling efficiency plays different roles: ====
* For Mitsubishi, NTT, Sivers, Semtech → It’s a joint technical validation: can POET’s passive, wafer-scale interposer preserve the performance their premium lasers/receivers are capable of?
* For Celestial AI → It’s a system-level economic factor: can Starlight deliver enough usable optical power, with low enough loss, that an optical fabric genuinely beats electrical fabrics on cost, bandwidth and watts per bit?
* For Luxshare, Mentech, FIT, BFYY → It’s a module-level cost/power knob: better coupling means cheaper modules, lower TDP, and more comfortable link margins.

The uncomfortable but honest point:
We still don’t have public, apples-to-apples dB numbers for these interfaces. What we do have is:
* A growing list of serious partners in very demanding applications, and
* No public sign yet that coupling efficiency is a blocking issue.

If you want, next step could be: we sketch typical link budgets for each use case (Celestial-type optical fabric vs NTT bi-di vs Sivers ELS/CPO) and mark where POET’s coupling sits in those budgets — that often makes it easier to see how much “slack” they probably have and where the real risk is.