A few thoughts on today’s SemiAnalysis TPU report. 1. I am deeply disappointed with the way SemiAnalysis continues to report on these issues. I have raised the same concern before with Micron, CPO delays, SOCAMM, and 8 high HBM4. I do not think they simply fabricate stories out of thin air. The problem is how they communicate them. They often seem too quick to report information that has not yet been confirmed, and even when the underlying facts are directionally correct, the ambiguity in the wording and framing repeatedly creates major misunderstandings in the market. 2. This TPU report is another example. If you actually read the substance, the 2026 AVGO TPU downward revision is explicitly attributed to supply constraints and challenges ramping CoWoS S. The 2027 revision is attributed to greater Broadcom capacity allocation toward other customers such as Meta and OpenAI. The AMD discussion, meanwhile, is about a potential TPU v10 project. The report does not establish any causal relationship between these two issues. Yet by placing them directly next to each other, it created a framing that could very easily be interpreted by institutional and professional investors quickly scanning the report as a simple "AMD Long, AVGO Short narrative" I am not saying that SemiAnalysis intentionally framed it this way. However, if they did not anticipate that kind of market interpretation, then I think this reflects a serious communication and editorial problem. On the other hand, if they did anticipate it, then I have to ask why they did not include even a single clear sentence explaining that the AVGO TPU downward revision was not being attributed to AMD. 3. Anyone who understands the ASIC business even at a basic level should know how dangerous this kind of overinterpretation can be. AVGO signed a long term agreement with Google just this April to develop and supply future generations of TPUs. The claim that AMD is already taking Broadcom’s TPU volume is simply not supported by the information presented in this report. And if the AMD collaboration they are referring to is related to on package CPU cores, then that is not really a threatening area for AVGO in the first place, because Broadcom is not competing in the x86 CPU market. A much simpler interpretation would be that Google may need x86 cores for specific use cases, such as RL workloads, and AMD could be relevant there. 4. Today I spoke not only with people in the semiconductor industry, but also with a friend who works at a New York hedge fund. He agreed with my view completely, while also pointing out that we cannot ignore either the influence of SemiAnalysis reports or the direction in which capital ultimately moves. Is this really healthy market behavior? This is the part that concerns me most. I assume SemiAnalysis understands very well how much influence its reports can have on the market. If so, I believe that influence should come with a much greater degree of care in how information is framed and communicated. This is not the first time this year that I have had concerns about this type of reporting, which is why I felt it was important to call it out directly this time. 5. In the end, I believe the ASIC business comes down to the quality of the IP and the ability to secure sufficient manufacturing capacity. AVGO has competed with Marvell on these fronts for many years and has continued to survive and win. It will continue to face challenges from other competitors on these same fronts, whether that competitor is AMD, Marvell, or someone else. So let us think again about what we should actually be asking. Why did AVGO recently enter into such a large strategic MOU with Samsung? What is AVGO preparing for next in its ASIC business? From a technical perspective, what are the actual risks facing its ASIC business? From AVGO’s perspective, in what ways could a more diversified customer base actually become a long term positive? I believe these are the questions that deserve much deeper analysis. Why does SemiAnalysis not address them? I am genuinely disappointed with this report. At this point, I am honestly irritated that I keep having to spend my valuable time rechecking the same facts every time this kind of ambiguous reporting creates another round of confusion in the market.