CCR Issue Analysis: SQ vs. TSE PQ Findings and Next Steps

I would like to provide an update on the different conclusions reached by SQ and TSE PQ regarding the CCR issue and data analysis.

In SQ's analysis, we thoroughly examined the CCR hard defect data for the first and second quarters of 2023 and focused on brands with more than 30 defects for SSR and more than 10 defects on DSR (sampling data). Our findings indicate that PQ gating is the primary cause of CCR hard defects, followed by the misbranded ASIN issue. In order to align our data with TSE PQ's measurements in parts per million (ppm), we converted our sampling data accordingly. Even after this conversion, we still arrived at the same conclusion, with PQ gating (10 ppm) being the primary driver compared to the misbranded ASIN issue (9 ppm). For more detailed information, please refer to the CCR comparison table.

Moving forward, our next step is to clarify the calculation logic and method utilized by both teams. This will enable us to establish a unified approach in addressing the CCR program in the second half of the year.