Sample Foundry-Review Packet for Mature-Node MPW
A sample foundry-review packet shows how MST converts an early MPW request into a concise decision packet for qualified partner review.
- →Answer-first summary
- →Sample packet header
- →Executive summary
- →Technical brief
- →Readiness gaps
Answer-first summary
A foundry-review packet converts an early MPW request into a concise decision document for qualified partner review. It should summarize customer context, end use, process request, die estimate, sample target, package/test assumptions, PDK/NDA status, missing fields, risk flags and the specific response being requested. It should not expose design IP at public intake.
This sample is fictional and non-confidential. It shows how MST can structure an MPW case before route-specific details, pricing, schedule or sensitive files are discussed.
Sample packet header
| Packet type | Mature-node MPW partner-review packet |
|---|---|
| Prepared by | MST MPW RFQ coordination desk |
| Disclosure level | Non-confidential first-review brief |
| Requested response | Process-fit and route-screening feedback; NDA/PDK path guidance if suitable |
Executive summary
Customer is evaluating a mature-node prototype for a commercial industrial-control application. Target process range is 0.18um to 0.13um, with analog/mixed-signal capability and possible high-voltage devices. Die estimate is preliminary. The customer needs packaged samples for bring-up and characterization. Public intake contains no GDS, RTL, netlist, source code, PDK file or proprietary IP.
Technical brief
Process request
- Target node range: 0.18um to 0.13um
- Process family: analog/mixed-signal, high-voltage option under review
- Special devices: to be confirmed after process-fit screening
- PDK status: no route-specific PDK path identified at public intake
Prototype assumptions
- Estimated die area: 3 mm x 3 mm to 5 mm x 5 mm
- Sample target: 50 to 100 packaged devices
- Package: QFN or similar wire-bond package, pin count not final
- Probe/test: wafer-probe and final-test needs not yet defined
- Timeline: customer requests first route feedback before committing to layout release plan
Readiness gaps
| Gap | Impact | Requested clarification |
|---|---|---|
| Voltage domains incomplete | Process family may change | Customer to provide target operating voltages at category level. |
| Package not fixed | Cost, schedule and pad-ring assumptions remain open | Customer to narrow package family and pin-count estimate. |
| Probe/test scope missing | Quote path may be wafer-only if not clarified | MST to prepare package/probe/test checklist. |
| NDA/PDK path unknown | Detailed design discussion cannot proceed | Partner to indicate required NDA sequence if the case fits. |
Risk flags
- Die area is preliminary, so cost-driver discussion is indicative.
- Package/test scope is underdefined and should be clarified before quote review.
- Design data is not requested at this stage.
- Partner name, route, pricing and schedule require case-specific confirmation and permission before external use.
Requested partner response
- Does the process-family description fit any mature-node route category?
- Which additional non-confidential fields are needed before NDA discussion?
- What package/probe/test assumptions should be clarified before quote review?
- What is the correct next step if the case passes initial screening?
How to create a packet like this
Start with the MPW RFQ Pack Builder, then use the PDK / Foundry Requirement Checklist and MPW Readiness Checker to close obvious gaps before submitting an MPW RFQ intake.
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.