TSEM
Registered claim
TSEM Q2 2026 (reports 2026-08-03) discloses 2027 contracted silicon-photonics revenue above the $1.3B secured as of Q1 2026, with explicit dollar quantification, AND prints revenue at least 2% above the frozen Street consensus snapshot.
Registered 2026-07-28.
Resolution spec
Spec registered 2026-07-28.
- [A] CORE :: At the 2026-08-03 Q2 2026 print, TSEM discloses in primary-source materials a 2027 contracted silicon-photonics revenue figure above $1.3B, explicitly quantified in dollars.kind: dated binary event :: event date 2026-08-03 :: evidence: primary source
- [B] confirm :: TSEM Q2 2026 total revenue is at least 2% above the frozen Street consensus snapshot.kind: numeric threshold :: q2-2026-total-revenue-vs-consensus-pct >= 2baseline 454.68 (consensus snapshot, frozen 2026-07-29)note: MarketBeat / Daily Political consensus for TSEM Q2 2026 (quarter ending 2026-06-30): revenue $454.68M, EPS $0.7580, across the covering analyst set; fetched 2026-07-29. Company guidance issued at Q1 was ~$455M +/-5%; consensus has converged to guidance. Print confirmed by company for 2026-08-04.
Verdict rule: HIT if leg A and leg B. PARTIAL if both leg A and not leg B, or both not leg A and leg B. MISS if not leg A and not leg B.
As frozen: HIT = A && B; PARTIAL = (A && !B) || (!A && B); MISS = !A && !B
Tier history
- 2026-07-28: MEDIUM (initial). Trigger: First reasoning-based assessment on a prediction seeded today. No TSEM evidence this run. Leg A requires TSEM to disclose 2027 contracted silicon-photonics revenue above the $1.3B secured as of Q1 - again the company's own figure. The strongest supporting datum is the 2026-07-14 disclosure of a ~$3B Japan capacity expansion with METI support (~$2B of Tower's own capital), since a company does not commit that against an unchanged order book. The argument review held optical-architecture-transition with zero contradicts.
Evaluated daily since registration: 10 evaluations. The 1 that moved the tier is listed above.
Resolution receipt
Verdict: MISS. Resolved 2026-08-08.
Rule: HIT if leg A and leg B. PARTIAL if both leg A and not leg B, or both not leg A and leg B. MISS if not leg A and not leg B.
As frozen: HIT = A && B; PARTIAL = (A && !B) || (!A && B); MISS = !A && !B
- [A] FAIL: Result UNCHANGED (fail); detail CORRECTED 2026-08-09. The Q2 2026 print occurred (6-K Ex. 99.1, accession 0001178913-26-003776, filed 2026-08-04) and was accompanied by the 2026-08-04 earnings call. Tower DID disclose a dollar-quantified 2027 contracted silicon-photonics figure: CEO Russell Ellwanger stated on the call that announced customer contracts represent approximately $1.3 billion of silicon-photonics revenue for 2027, with higher growth expected in 2028. It also disclosed the annualised run rate ($680M in Q2 2026 from $180M in Q2 2025, targeting $1B in Q4 2026) - both bases, not one replacing the other. The leg fails on MAGNITUDE, not absence: it requires a figure ABOVE $1.3B and Tower restated it at approximately $1.3B, flat versus the Q1 2026 disclosure. Ellwanger noted that further capacity has been requested and committed by several lead customers but is not all formally booked, which is the acknowledged reason the contracted figure did not step. The call facts are on the evidence record as the cited datapoint (created 2026-08-09; the original 2026-08-07 extraction captured the headline print but neither SiPho reporting basis). The original detail's characterisations - 'discloses NO dollar-quantified 2027 CONTRACTED figure' and an implied change of reporting basis - are superseded.
- [B] FAIL: actual_raw=460.079 vs frozen baseline 454.68 → 1.19% >= 2. TSEM reported Q2 2026 revenue of $460.079M per the company's results press release (6-K Ex. 99.1, filed 2026-08-04) - +1.19% above the frozen consensus snapshot of $454.68M, below the +2% threshold.
Autopsy
Read the full autopsy
Resolved MISS on 2026-08-08. Both legs failed. The confirm leg came in at $460.079M against a frozen baseline of $454.68M, 1.19% above it against a 2% threshold. The first version of this autopsy was wrong about why the core leg failed, and the correction changes what the print means. It recorded that Tower disclosed no dollar-quantified 2027 contracted silicon-photonics revenue figure, and that the company had moved its reporting from a contracted-2027 basis to an annualised-run-rate basis. Neither is true. Tower disclosed both bases on the 2026-08-04 call: chief executive Russell Ellwanger stated that the company has announced customer contracts representing approximately $1.3 billion of silicon-photonics revenue for 2027, with higher growth expected in 2028, alongside the $680M annualised second-quarter run rate and the $1B run-rate target for the fourth quarter of 2026. There was no basis change and no absence. The leg failed on the number. It required a 2027 contracted figure above $1.3B, and Tower restated it at approximately $1.3B, flat against the disclosure from the previous quarter. Flat is not above, so the leg fails correctly, but it fails as a neutral-to-adverse datapoint rather than as a disclosure gap. That distinction is the difference between a company declining to tell you something and a company telling you the number did not move. The analytically important fact was buried in the original resolution. The silicon-photonics run rate more than tripled year over year, from $180M to $680M, while the contracted 2027 book did not move off $1.3B. Ellwanger supplied the mechanism himself: additional capacity has been requested and committed by several lead customers, but not all of it is formally booked. The contracted figure is therefore understating demand by a booking-convention margin the company has acknowledged and not sized. That is a live watch surface rather than an anecdote about how to write a call. If other names in this cohort also present indium-phosphide and silicon-photonics demand as opportunity framing or run rate rather than as booked backlog, then the cohort is systematically underreporting contracted commitment, and any measure built on the contracted figure is measuring a convention rather than a constraint. The print itself was strong: record revenue of roughly $460M, up 24% year over year, third quarter guided to about $520M for an implied annualised run rate above $2B, the 2028 model raised to $3.6B of revenue at 45% gross margin and 33% net margin, $290M of customer prepayments received, and a government-supported dual-track 300mm expansion in Japan. The claim that the optical architecture is transitioning was reinforced in substance and its falsifiability surface was not touched. The corrected lesson is narrower than the one first recorded. Guarding against a change in reporting basis is not the lesson here, because no such change occurred. It is that a leg asking for a figure to grow should anticipate that a company which updates an annual contracted book quarterly will often restate it unchanged between updates, because contracted books step on contract-signing events rather than on a quarterly cadence. Where the question that matters is whether the book grew, the call needs either a horizon long enough to contain a plausible re-contracting event, or a measure of booked-plus-committed rather than booked alone.