Asia Mature-Node MPW RFQ Path: What Can Be Discussed Before NDA?
Asia mature-node MPW conversations should start with category-level requirements and keep foundry names, PDK access and design data behind the correct review path.
- →Answer-first summary
- →Why category language is safer than route-name marketing
- →What can be discussed before NDA
- →What should wait until the controlled path is clear
- →How MST handles early Asia mature-node RFQs
Answer-first summary
Before NDA, an Asia mature-node MPW RFQ should stay at the category and requirement level. A safe first brief can include application, target node range, process family, estimated die area, sample target, package/test assumptions, timeline, customer country and end-use context.
Foundry names, partner route details, PDK access, price, shuttle window, design-rule detail, GDS, OASIS, RTL, netlists, schematics, source code and proprietary design IP should wait for the correct NDA and partner-confirmed review path.
Why category language is safer than route-name marketing
MPW customers often want to know which factory or route is available. That is understandable, but public naming before written approval creates avoidable risk. A mature-node path may have limits around geography, customer type, end use, application, PDK access, schedule, disclosure rights and commercial handoff.
For that reason, MST describes early routes by category: Asia-based mature-node coordination, NDA-based partner-confirmed review, process-family screening and non-confidential RFQ preparation. Specific route disclosure belongs later, when the route permits it.
What can be discussed before NDA
Application and use case
Examples include sensor interface, industrial control, mixed-signal prototype, RF feasibility, high-voltage control, power-management support or academic first-silicon learning. Keep the description functional and non-confidential.
Node range and process family
The first discussion can include a target node range such as mature-node CMOS, analog, mixed-signal, RF, BCD, high-voltage, sensor-oriented or eNVM-related process families. Treat these as review assumptions until a qualified partner confirms feasibility.
Die estimate, sample target and schedule
A rough die-area estimate, sample target and desired timeline help identify whether the request resembles MPW, engineering run, package/test planning or a design-readiness problem. These are planning inputs, not confirmed price or schedule commitments.
Package, wafer probe and final test
Early package and test assumptions are safe and useful. They often determine whether a quote path is realistic. Include package preference, pad-count estimate if available, wafer-probe need, final-test scope and characterization goals.
Country and end-use context
Country, customer organization type and end-use context should be visible early. This helps avoid routing unsuitable or incomplete requests into partner review and supports later compliance screening.
What should wait until the controlled path is clear
- Foundry or route name disclosure when not already publicly approved.
- PDK files, PDK access promises or partner-specific design-rule detail.
- GDS, OASIS, RTL, netlists, schematics, source code, masks or proprietary IP.
- Formal price, schedule, shuttle window or capacity statements.
- Detailed circuit implementation and competitive product information.
- Customer files that cannot be forwarded without written permission.
How MST handles early Asia mature-node RFQs
MST first converts the inquiry into a non-confidential brief. The brief is screened for completeness, process-fit assumptions, package/test scope, country/end-use context and missing readiness items. If the request is plausible, MST prepares a partner-review packet and moves toward the correct NDA, PDK and route-confirmation path.
If the request is not ready, MST can return a readiness report instead of pushing it to partner review. That report may ask for die estimate, package assumptions, sample goals, design maturity, application scope or safer non-confidential wording.
Suggested first message
A good first message is simple:
We are evaluating a mature-node MPW path for a non-confidential prototype. Target range is [node range], process family is [analog/RF/BCD/HV/eNVM/etc.], estimated die area is [range], sample target is [quantity], package/test assumptions are [summary], customer country is [country], and end use is [summary]. We are not sending GDS or design IP at this stage. Please help us prepare a reviewable RFQ brief and identify the correct NDA/PDK path.
Why this improves trust
A careful no-name, no-IP-first process is more credible than public route-name marketing. It protects the customer, respects partner disclosure rules and gives the review team a cleaner intake package. It also makes the later commercial conversation more serious because the request has already been screened and structured.
Related Articles
Ready to scope your run?
Send node, process family, die area, volume and timeline - no design IP. We screen it, route to a qualified partner, and return an indicative quote.