Chip design
driver a named mechanism, not a conclusion
The packaging bottleneck migrates from CoWoS interposers to high-end FC-BGA substrates as EMIB-class designs displace monolithic interposers.
The path
| node | effect |
|---|---|
| EMIB (Embedded Multi-die Interconnect Bridge) | +0.35 |
| CoWoS (Chip-on-Wafer-on-Substrate) | +0.35 |
| Hybrid Bonding | +0.35 |
| 3D Stacking | +0.35 |
| ABF Substrate (Ajinomoto Build-up Film) | +0.35 |
coverage
5 of 5 declared anchors resolve in the model. A driver is a named mechanism rather than a graded severity or a priced claim, so its effects are deliberately smaller than either.
Arguments about this mechanism
These name its subject — they are claims about this mechanism, and they are what the eligibility gates grade.
Arguments that run through it
These name a node on the path rather than the subject, so they pass through this mechanism without being about it. Shown separately and never graded as claims about it — hubs above the graph’s own 90th-percentile degree are excluded, or every argument touching NVIDIA would attach to every mechanism NVIDIA touches.