Step 1 of 1 · Full formulas: The maths and a worked example. (tap to open)
🔍 For the curious: the full formulas and worked example
1. How close to real use (0–100): how close to making money
| Criterion | Weight | How we score it (0-5) |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence level | 55% | How far along the proof is (TRL-style ladder). |
| Manufacturability | 20% | 0 = exotic materials no fab can make; 5 = runs on today's standard lines. |
| Supply chain | 10% | 0 = tools/materials don't exist; 5 = mature suppliers ready. |
| Corporate backing | 10% | 0 = academic only; 2 = funded startup; 3 = big-company R&D; 5 = several big firms committing spending on buildings and machines. |
| Independent groups | 5% | 1 = one lab; 5 = industry-wide effort. |
Evidence ladder (the biggest weight)
- Paper / simulation only → 0% of the evidence weight · Stage 1 · years-to-market 6-10
- Lab demo → 10% of the evidence weight · Stage 1 · years-to-market 4-8
- Working prototype chip → 25% of the evidence weight · Stage 2 · years-to-market 3-6
- Customer samples / qualification → 45% of the evidence weight · Stage 2 · years-to-market 2-4
- Volume production or orders → 75% of the evidence weight · Stage 3 · years-to-market 0-2
- Revenue at scale → 100% of the evidence weight · Stage 4 · years-to-market now
2. Other scores
🧪 Stage
Set by evidence only: 0-1 → Stage 1 Paper, 2-3 → Stage 2 Prototype, 4 → Stage 3 Factories & orders, 5 → Stage 4 Revenue.
⏳ Years to market
From the evidence ladder. Early items (evidence 0-2) get +2 years if manufacturability is 0-1, or −2 years if it already runs on standard lines (4-5).
🎢 Talk vs. real progress
Talk score = 10 × claim boldness (0-5; "1000× faster" = 5) + 10 × attention (0-5: press, funding, famous backers). Gap = Hype − How close to real use (0–100): up to 10 = reality catching up, up to 35 = some hype, more = mostly hype.
⚖️ Patent / patents risk
Average of crowding (how many patent holders, 0-5) and litigation history (0-5): 3.5+ High, 2+ Medium, else Low. Not legal advice.
🎯 How sure we are (opportunities)
Score = 0.4 × average how close to real use of linked research + 0.4 × 20 × exposure (share of the business riding on it, 0-5) + 0.2 × 20 × execution (track record, balance sheet, 0-5). 65+ High, 45-64 Medium, under 45 Speculative. Not directly investable, or exposure 0-1 → ⚪ Too early: still early. Execution 0-1 (e.g. pre-profit, funding risk) caps it at Speculative.
3. Worked example: Applied Materials and Besi help glue chips together copper-to-copper
| Criterion | Sub-score | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence level | 4/5 | 41.2 |
| Manufacturability | 4/5 | 16.0 |
| Supply chain | 4/5 | 8.0 |
| Corporate backing | 5/5 | 10.0 |
| Independent groups | 5/5 | 5.0 |
| How close to real use (0–100) | 80 | |
4. Re-score on Thu 29 Oct: what changed
Our first issue used expert judgment directly. Re-running every item through this formula moved these numbers. Stage changes: Neuromorphic S2→S1.
| Item | How close to real use (0–100) | Hype | Years | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neurophos builds an AI chip that computes with light | 25 → 31 | 80 → 80 | 4-6 → 3-6 | S2 → S2 |
| Volantis builds a light-based 'highway' between AI c | 20 → 32 | 75 → 80 | 4-7 → 4-8 | S1 → S1 |
| IBM stores many values in one memory spot | 15 → 19 | 40 → 40 | 5-8 → 6-10 | S1 → S1 |
| Micron makes noisy analog AI chips accurate by split | 30 → 35 | 30 → 30 | 3-5 → 4-8 | S1 → S1 |
| New light switch sends 200 billion bits a second per | 35 → 36 | 45 → 40 | 3-5 → 2-6 | S1 → S1 |
| imec stacks atom-thin transistors on top of each oth | 10 → 16 | 55 → 50 | 8+ → 6-10 | S1 → S1 |
| Applied Materials and Besi help glue chips together | 65 → 80 | 50 → 50 | 1-3 → 0-2 | S3 → S3 |
| TSMC and others swap plastic for glass under AI chip | 40 → 52 | 65 → 70 | 2-4 → 2-4 | S2 → S2 |
| Brain-like chip learns on the device itself | 25 → 28 | 60 → 60 | 4-6 → 4-8 | S2 → S1 |
| NUS team makes one transistor act as logic, memory o | 10 → 16 | 35 → 30 | 7+ → 6-10 | S1 → S1 |
| Fudan team's light-powered brain-like chip runs visi | 15 → 16 | 70 → 70 | 5-8 → 6-10 | S1 → S1 |
| ST takes light-based chip parts to high-volume facto | 75 → 84 | 25 → 30 | 0-2 → 0-2 | S3 → S3 |
How sure we are changes
| Company | How sure we are | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Ibiden | 🔒 Rating for members | 61 |
| Tower Semiconductor | 🔒 Rating for members | 49 |
| Corning | 🔒 Rating for members | 53 |
| BrainChip | 🔒 Rating for members | 55 |
| Besi | 🔒 Rating for members | 88 |
| Kaynes Technology | 🔒 Rating for members | 34 |
| CG Power | 🔒 Rating for members | 52 |
| Adeia | 🔒 Rating for members | 64 |
| STMicroelectronics | 🔒 Rating for members | 66 |
| TSMC | 🔒 Rating for members | 57 |
| AMD | 🔒 Rating for members | 39 |
5. Data sources & update cadence
- Papers: Nature-family journals, arXiv, AIP and conference proceedings (IEDM, ISSCC).
- Patents: Google Patents and patent-analytics sites.
- Company facts: SEC filings, investor-relations releases, earnings💡 reports.
- Counter-evidence: trade press, reviews and company filings, always linked in each "What could go wrong" box.
- Cadence: one issue per day when there is news. Each item keeps first-seen, last-updated and history, and every call is logged on the Track record.
6. Limitations (please read)
- Sub-scores are human judgment. Two careful analysts could differ by ±1 on any criterion (about ±10 how close to real use points).
- Weights are our choice, not a statistically validated model. Any change to them will be published here.
- Press releases overstate; papers under-report failures. A missing bear source does not mean low risk.
- We have no access to private company data, customer contracts or patent claim charts.
- How sure we are is about the research-to-revenue story, not share price or share price compared with profits.
⚠️ Not investment, legal or financial advice. Do your own research and consult a registered adviser.
Stage ladders by topic
The how close to real use score and stage use the same formula for every topic. Only the stage names change, so they read naturally in each field. Stage 1 = evidence 0–1, Stage 2 = 2–3, Stage 3 = 4 (volume / in use), Stage 4 = 5 (revenue / approved). Mapping names to topics is our judgment.
| Topic | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chips | Paper | Prototype | Factories & orders | Revenue |
| Medical/Biotech | Preclinical | Early trial (Ph 1/2) | Late trial (Ph 3) | Approved |
| Neuro/BCI (brain-computer interface) | Lab study | Pilot / feasibility | Pivotal trial | Approved device |
| Superintelligence/AI | Research | Preview | Shipping | Widely adopted |
| Quantum | Lab physics | Hardware demo | Cloud access / customers | Commercial advantage |
| Materials/Energy | Lab cell | Pilot cell | Pilot line | Mass production |
| DNA data storage | Lab proof | Prototype system | Pilot archives | Commercial service |
| Space & Connectivity | Design | Testing | Flight | Operations |
| Finance & FinTech | Research / sandbox | Pilot | Live launch | Scaled & regulated |
| AI Models | Paper / research | Limited preview | Generally available | Widely adopted |
| Robotics & Autonomy | Lab demo | Pilot deployment | Commercial service | Scaled fleet |
| Nuclear | Design / physics | Test machine | Licensed build | Power on grid |
| Defence & Drones | Concept | Trials | Orders placed | In service |
| Cybersecurity & Post-Quantum Crypto | Research / standard | Pilot | Shipping product | Widely deployed |
| Batteries & Grid Storage | Lab cell | Pilot cell | Pilot line / first sites | Widely used |
| Synthetic Bio & Longevity | Preclinical | Early trial | Late trial | Approved |
| Climate & Carbon Capture | Lab / concept | Pilot plant | Contracted tonnes | Verified at scale |
| AR/VR & Spatial Computing | Prototype | Dev kit | Consumer launch | Mass adoption |
| Agritech & Food Tech | Lab / field trial | Pilot farms | Commercial launch | Widely adopted |
| Water Tech | Lab prototype | Field pilot | Commercial plant | Scaled supply |
⚡ how soon sign
Each item gets one of three badges. It says how time-sensitive the item looks to us, not whether it will make money.
- Score U = ½ × how close to real use + 15 if a dated big upcoming event within 90 days names the developer or a linked company + 3 × positive how close to real use weekly change − 8 × each warning flag (bold claim ≥4, patents litigation ≥3, or still Stage 1).
- 🔒 Rating for members U ≥ 55, how close to real use ≥ 70, a listed stock code is linked and a big upcoming event falls within 90 days.
- 🔒 Rating for members U ≥ 40, how close to real use ≥ 55 and a listed stock code is linked.
- 🔒 Rating for members everything else, including all items with no listed company.
How we score, step by step
Every score here follows the same rules. You can check our work.
- We read the proof. We look at papers, patents and company news. We ask: is it only on paper? A lab test? A sample sent to buyers? Selling in big numbers?
- We give marks. Each item gets marks from 0 to 5 on a few questions. The biggest one is proof. Others ask if it can be made in normal factories, and who is backing it.
- We add up the marks. That gives "how close to real use," from 0 to 100. Higher means closer to making money.
- We pick a stage. Stage 1 is paper only. Stage 2 is a working test. Stage 3 is factories and orders. Stage 4 is real sales.
- We guess the years. More proof means fewer years until it reaches the market.
- We check the hype. Big claims and lots of press raise the hype mark. If hype is far above real progress, we warn you.
- We check the patent risk. Many patent owners or past lawsuits mean more risk.
- We rate the companies. For each company, we ask three things. How ready is the research? How much of the business depends on it? Does the company have a good record?
- We check timing. A dated big event in the next 90 days makes an item more urgent.
- We write it all down. Every call goes on the Track record page. Later, we mark it right or wrong.
Where our facts come from
- Science papers and patents.
- Company reports and news releases.
- Trade news and reviews that point out problems.
- We add a new issue each day there is news.
What we can't do
- Our marks are human judgment. Two careful people could differ a little.
- We chose the weights ourselves. They are not proven by statistics.
- Companies often oversell. Papers often skip failures.
- We can't see private company data or contracts.
- Our ratings are about the research story, not the share price.
⚠️ Our judgment · Not financial advice. Do your own research. Talk to a registered adviser.