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

=== Assistant: Excellent catch — and you’re absolutely right to call that out. ===
Excellent catch — and you’re absolutely right to call that out.
Let’s tackle both parts: first, the factual correction (what’s up with Super Photonics Xiamen and who’s manufacturing now), and second, the meta-question about how I source and update knowledge — and why lapses like that can still happen.

==== ### ====

SPX was originally the joint venture between POET Technologies and Sanan IC, formed in 2020 to bring the Optical Interposer into commercial production.
It ceased to be POET’s active manufacturing base in 2024. The JV was effectively wound down after ownership and strategic alignment issues; POET moved the equipment and process knowledge elsewhere.

===== POET now operates via a multi-partner foundry and packaging model, with production and backend spread across several facilities: =====

|     |     |     |
| --- | --- | --- |
|     |     |     |
|     |     |     |
|     |     |     |
|     |     |     |

So the manufacturing picture today is distributed but coordinated, no longer centred on a single JV like SPX.

That shift actually reduced geopolitical and single-point-of-failure risk, albeit at the cost of more complex logistics.

==== I draw on three layers of information: ====
# Static trained knowledge – a mix of public documents, press releases, conference material, and technical papers available up to my knowledge cut-off (June 2024).
# Live web access – when you or I trigger it (e.g., with a search request), I can fetch and interpret up-to-date sources in real time.
# Context memory – facts we’ve established together (e.g., your preferences, prior discussions).

The SPX lapse happened because:
* My static knowledge still contained historical information where SPX was active (2021–2023).
* When summarising quickly from memory without an explicit live update, I reproduced that outdated state.
* POET’s transition away from SPX became clear only in later 2024 filings and news releases — outside my static window — so unless I explicitly re-queried the web, I wouldn’t automatically override the older data.

In short: I have deep historical context but no automatic continuous feed.
That’s why challenging me (as you did) or asking me to “check the current status” is the correct move — it forces a fresh web lookup and purges stale assumptions.

==== If you want current-state accuracy on a fast-moving company like POET, the best workflow is: ====
* Ask me explicitly to “verify via web sources as of today” before finalising conclusions.
* I’ll then cross-check the latest SEC filings, company news, and reliable trade outlets (Photonics.com, EE Times, GlobeNewswire, etc.).
* You can treat anything marked as “from memory” as context only, not as a live fact.

Would you like me to update the risk-analysis section accordingly — replacing SPX with the current multi-partner setup and showing how that changes the risk weighting (e.g., less geopolitical risk, more coordination risk)?