Please cite the text verbatim from the letter that states " the letter says there is a lot more left to do and that customers will see demos AFTER it is ready."
I call B.S.
I"m not trying to mislead anyone. I'm really trying to understand it. If there are 2, 3, or 100 different kinds of testing going on or left to be done, fine...All I'm pointing out is that the letter says there is a lot more left to do and that customers will see demos AFTER it is ready.
OK - I'll quote some text from the letter for you...
On the commercialization front, we are deepening our relationships with current partners, foundries, and end-users and we are currently in discussions regarding potential commercial agreements. In addition, we are concurrently engaged to conduct performance demonstrations and traffic trails in potential customers systems.
DIdn't mention testing needed first, did it?
This says they have the results that customers want to see:
Early in the year we announced breakthrough photostability results on our electro-optic polymer modulators that are compatible with high-volume silicon foundry processes. Our latest polymers were subjected to rigorous optical testing and resulted in performance increases that far exceed previous polymer material designs. We then further enhanced photostability results on our proprietary electro-optic polymer modulators - demonstrating the reliability necessary for commercial deployments - all based on a technology which can be ported into high-volume silicon foundries and integrated onto a silicon photonics platform with other optical devices. These photostability results demonstrate both the compatibility with standard semiconductor manufacturing processes needed for security of supply and the high reliability needed for commercial deployments. Photostability is a metric customers ask about frequently and we are now excited with the results achieved and the impact we believe it will have with silicon foundries.
With the exception of the Safe Harbor statement, customers are only mentioned two times so it is impossible that this could be "as implied in the shareholder letter".
Again - your objection seems to be your own invention and not part of the shareholder letter.