Topic: Capital Markets-Company & Equity Research
Report type: Consumer Electronics Component Supplier Shipment Mix and Growth Assessment Report (消费电子零部件公司出货结构与成长性评估报告)

Based on the latest disclosed monthly shipment data of Q Technology (1478.HK), and following the analytical framework commonly adopted by sell-side research institutions for consumer electronics component companies, prepare an in-depth research report titled "Shipment Structure Evolution and Growth Logic Assessment of Q Technology," and complete at least the following tasks:

1. Shipment Structure and Business Differentiation: Compare the shipment trends of camera modules (CCM) and fingerprint recognition modules (FPM), explain the reasons behind the YoY pressure on CCM and the growth in FPM, and analyze these dynamics in conjunction with product cycles and customer structure.

2. Specification Upgrades and Product Mix: Review the changes over the past five years in the proportion of high-resolution modules (32MP and above) within the company's CCM shipments, and discuss the impact of specification upgrades on ASP, revenue composition, and profitability.

3. Non-Smartphone Applications and New Growth Drivers: Based on shipment performance in non-smartphone applications such as IoT and automotive electronics, evaluate the contribution of new scenarios to mid- to long-term growth, and analyze how these emerging growth drivers affect the company’s valuation.

4. Strategic Initiatives and Investment Implications: Considering the company’s positioning in optical actuators and advanced optical technologies, as well as potential M&A activities, analyze the logic of vertical integration and valuation re-rating, and summarize key stock price catalysts and risks.

## Evaluation Criteria for “Q Technology Shipment Mix Changes and Growth Logic Assessment Research Report”

This evaluation system is designed to assess the quality of research reports centered on Q Technology’s shipment mix changes, business segmentation (CCM vs. FPM), and mid-to-long-term growth logic. It is compatible with both human review and consistent LLM-based automated scoring. Scoring emphasizes: rigorous handling of monthly shipment data and statistical definitions; a verifiable causal chain behind CCM pressure vs. FPM growth; mapping of spec upgrades to the ASP→revenue→gross margin transmission; and actionable judgments on sustainable growth and valuation re-rating conditions in non-smartphone scenarios.

Total score: 100 points; 4 primary dimensions; 13 secondary dimensions.

### 1. Insights on Shipment Mix and Business Segmentation (30 points)
#### (1) Monthly shipment data processing and definition consistency (8 points)
- 7–8: Clearly discloses data sources and time window; makes necessary adjustments for “monthly volatility/seasonality/working days/Lunar New Year timing mismatch”; identifies and addresses definition changes (e.g., statistical scope, product categories, customer definition) and their impact on YoY/MoM comparisons; provides reproducible charts (at minimum: monthly CCM/FPM series, YoY/MoM, rolling 3M/12M).
- 4–6: Completes basic YoY/MoM calculations and charting, but insufficiently flags seasonality/definition risks, or handles them only descriptively.
- 0–3: Simply lists numbers without time-series processing or definition explanations, making conclusions questionable or not reproducible.

#### (2) Quality of causal explanation for CCM pressure vs. FPM growth (12 points)
- 11–12: Builds a clear, verifiable explanation chain across “demand/supply/competition/customers/product cycle,” and distinguishes the relative weight of drivers (e.g., Android supply-chain demand changes, customer share migration, per-device camera configuration changes, pricing pressure, yield/delivery constraints, fingerprint module penetration and solution switching); conclusions are cross-validated with shipment mix, base effects, and industry cycle indicators.
- 7–10: Covers major factors, but lacks weighting judgment or has an incomplete evidence chain (e.g., discusses industry demand but not customers/competition, or discusses customers but not product cycle).
- 0–6: Stays at generalized statements like “the market is weak/demand is soft,” without data or industry-logic support.

#### (3) Sell-side level of customer mix and product cycle analysis (10 points)
- 9–10: Clearly breaks down key customer types/platforms (using compliant phrasing such as “top customers/overseas customers/automotive customers”), and infers trends for the next 1–2 quarters based on new product launch cadence, build cycle, and inventory cycle; provides judgments and evidence on customer concentration, bargaining power, and order visibility.
- 6–8: Mentions customers and cycles, but projection is rough, lacks time specificity, or lacks analysis of how order visibility/concentration affects outcomes.
- 0–5: Hardly addresses customers and cycles, or only repeats common knowledge.

---

### 2. Spec Upgrades and Profitability Mapping (25 points)
#### (1) Quantification and decomposition of 32MP+ mix changes (10 points)
- 9–10: Provides monthly/quarterly trend of 32MP+ shipment share, YoY changes, and turning-point explanations; further decomposes contributions into “volume growth/structural upgrade/base effect/customer pull”; charts and definitions are clear.
- 6–8: Includes share data and trend judgment, but lacks contribution decomposition or has weak turning-point reasoning.
- 0–5: Only states qualitatively that “upgrading is significant,” without quantified share or with non-rigorous trend analysis.

#### (2) Completeness of the ASP→revenue→gross margin transmission chain (10 points)
- 9–10: Builds a reproducible bridge model: shipment volume × ASP (or ASP by spec) → revenue; derives gross margin/profit elasticity by incorporating yield, material cost, depreciation/expense amortization, and product mix changes; explains conditions under which “higher pixel does not necessarily mean higher profit” (e.g., price competition, yield ramp, customer rebates, foundry vs. in-house manufacturing mix).
- 6–8: Can infer direction of ASP/revenue from spec upgrades, but insufficiently decomposes gross margin drivers, or fails to disclose key assumptions.
- 0–5: Sticks to a linear narrative “higher pixels → higher ASP → better profit,” without cost/yield/competition constraints.

#### (3) Key assumptions and sensitivity/scenario analysis (5 points)
- 5: Lists at least 3 key assumptions (e.g., 32MP+ mix, ASP changes, yield/cost, customer share, industry demand growth) and provides quantified scenario/sensitivity (bull/base/bear) showing impact on revenue and profit.
- 3–4: Has assumptions, but insufficient quantification or missing sensitivity analysis.
- 0–2: No explicit assumptions; calculations are not verifiable.

---

### 3. Non-Smartphone Applications and Mid-to-Long-Term Growth Assessment (20 points)
#### (1) Shipment performance and sustainability judgment for IoT/automotive electronics, etc. (8 points)
- 7–8: Clearly presents scale, growth rate, volatility patterns, and drivers of non-smartphone application shipments; discusses correlation with the smartphone business (counter-cyclical vs. pro-cyclical); provides reasonable judgments on order visibility, certification cycles (automotive), and customer onboarding cadence.
- 4–6: Describes growth but lacks analysis of “sustainability/visibility/certification cycle.”
- 0–3: Slogan-like claims that “non-smartphone = new growth driver,” without data or industry mechanisms.

#### (2) Competitive moats and commercialization path (7 points)
- 6–7: Explains moat sources in new scenarios (technology, process, reliability, certification, delivery, cost, customer relationships, etc.) and competitor landscape; provides actionable commercialization path with stage breakdown (introduction/ramp/scale).
- 3–5: Mentions moats but stays conceptual; lacks path and staging.
- 0–2: Does not analyze moats or competition; conclusions are not credible.

#### (3) Quantitative framework for mid-to-long-term contribution (5 points)
- 5: Uses a clear framework to quantify contribution (e.g., 2–3 year revenue share/increment, profit contribution, or cash flow impact) and explains key constraints (capacity, certification, ASP, yield, customer concentration).
- 3–4: Has quantitative targets but lacks constraints or assumption disclosure.
- 0–2: No quantification or only vague judgments.

---

### 4. Strategic Initiatives, Valuation Re-Rating, and Investment Implications (25 points)
#### (1) Strategic alignment and feasibility of optical actuators/frontier optics initiatives (8 points)
- 7–8: Explains synergy with core business (performance, cost, yield, lead time, customer solution lock-in, etc.); discusses R&D/capex, mass-production ramp, and customer onboarding thresholds; identifies milestones (samples/design-in/MP) and their timeline.
- 4–6: Clarifies strategic direction but lacks feasibility discussion on ramp/onboarding and milestones.
- 0–3: Only lists concepts without an execution path.

#### (2) M&A potential and value assessment of vertical integration (7 points)
- 6–7: Evaluates M&A/integration benefits from synergies, cost structure, supply-chain security, bargaining power, and technology gap filling; also covers integration risks (culture/process/customer overlap, goodwill, cash flow pressure) and trigger conditions.
- 3–5: Emphasizes synergies only; does not discuss integration risks or triggers.
- 0–2: Treats M&A as a slogan-like positive, lacking an assessment framework.

#### (3) Valuation methodology, re-rating logic, and peer benchmarking (6 points)
- 5–6: Uses a reasonable valuation framework (one or a combination of P/E, P/B, EV/EBITDA, SOTP) and benchmarks against comparable companies/businesses; clearly states “conditions for re-rating to hold” (earnings inflection, business mix change, new business ramp, cash flow improvement, etc.) and cases where it does not hold.
- 3–4: Has a valuation conclusion but insufficient benchmarking or unclear conditions.
- 0–2: No valuation framework, or only provides target price/multiple without basis.

#### (4) Specificity of stock catalysts and risk list (4 points)
- 4: Both catalysts and risks include “event/indicator + realization timing/trigger condition + impact pathway,” and they balance (cross-check) the main-text logic.
- 2–3: Lists points but lacks timing/impact pathway, or repeats the main text as a stack of items.
- 0–1: Template-like risks/catalysts that do not match the company’s characteristics.