Topic: Capital Markets-Sector & Thematic Research
Report type: China PCB Industry Value Chain Deep-Dive Report (中国PCB行业产业链深度研究报告)

As the global AI computing architecture evolves from general-purpose GPUs toward ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits), the market has begun to reassess supply constraints in key upstream segments. Assume you are a securities analyst specializing in technology hardware and semiconductor supply chains. Please prepare an in-depth research report titled "Supply Chain Bottleneck Analysis of China's PCB Industry under the AI ASIC Wave." 

Please complete the following analysis tasks:

1. Evolution of Computing Architecture and Changes in PCB Demand: Outline the core logic behind the transition of AI computing from GPUs to ASICs, and analyze the new requirements imposed on PCBs in terms of layer count, materials (high-speed/low-loss), manufacturing processes, and reliability. Evaluate how these requirements reshape the PCB market structure;
2. Mechanism of PCB Bottleneck Formation: From the perspectives of capacity expansion cycles, yield ramp-up, and supporting equipment and materials, explain why high-end PCBs (e.g., high-layer HDI boards and high-speed server boards) may become a key constraint for AI ASIC expansion by 2026;
3. Assessment of China's PCB Supply Chain: Evaluate Chinese PCB manufacturers in terms of technological capabilities, customer structure, and global competitive positioning. Analyze their strengths, weaknesses, and domestic substitution potential in meeting AI ASIC demand;
4. Industry Impact and Investment Implications: Analyze how PCB bottlenecks affect the scaling pace of AI chips, computing costs, and capital expenditures of cloud providers. Based on this, summarize medium-term investment implications and key risks for China's PCB industry.

Please incorporate relevant data in the report to substantiate the analysis and support key arguments.

## Evaluation Criteria for: Supply Chain Bottleneck Analysis Report on China's PCB Industry Under the AI ASIC Wave

This evaluation framework is used to conduct an executable, quantitative assessment of deep-research reports under the theme of 'technology hardware / semiconductor supply chain', focusing on high-end PCBs driven by AI ASICs. Scoring emphasizes: accuracy in understanding technology and system architecture; verifiability and quantifiability of bottleneck mechanisms; fact-based support for China's supply-chain positioning; and actionable guidance for industry timing and investment decisions. The framework contains 4 primary dimensions and 12 secondary dimensions, totaling 100 points, and is designed for consistent use across human review and LLM-based automated scoring.

---

### 1. Compute Architecture Evolution and Insights into PCB Technical Requirements (25 points)

#### (1) GPU -> ASIC evolution logic and demand-side derivation (8 points)
- 7-8 points: Clearly explains the drivers for moving from general-purpose GPUs to ASICs / specialized accelerators (cost/energy efficiency/TCO, model-specific operators, system integration and supply chain considerations, multi-vendor strategies, etc.), and connects them to how changes in system form factor impact PCBs (add-in card vs full system vs rack, interconnect topology, power density, I/O bandwidth, and networking-side changes), with an explicit causal pathway.
- 4-6 points: Explains why ASICs are rising, but the transmission chain to PCB demand is coarse and misses key intermediate variables (I/O rate, board-level interconnect density, form-factor differences).
- 0-3 points: Stays at the level of 'ASICs are more specialized and cheaper', or gets GPU/ASIC system differences wrong or confused.

#### (2) PCB spec changes: layer count/materials/process and reliability requirements (10 points)
- 9-10 points: Clearly identifies new requirements imposed by AI-ASIC-related carriers (accelerator cards, server motherboards, switches, etc.) for high layer count, high-speed low-loss materials, HDI/high-density interconnect, impedance control, back-drilling/blind-buried vias, low warpage, and thermal reliability; and provides checkable ways to express technical metrics (e.g., signal-rate generations, loss/dielectric parameter dimensions, line width/spacing and via-structure difficulties, reliability test focus areas).
- 6-8 points: Covers the upgrade direction for layer count and materials, but provides insufficient rationale for why these indicators become binding constraints, or lacks expansion on process/reliability.
- 0-5 points: Only states that 'high-end PCB demand is growing' with generalized requirements; or shows major concept confusion (e.g., consistently conflating PCB with packaging substrates/ABF, etc., without clarifying boundaries).

#### (3) Technology roadmap and standards/generation cadence (7 points)
- 6-7 points: Incorporates a 2-3 year generation roadmap (e.g., SerDes rate upgrades, networking generation shifts, changes in system power density) to form staged judgments on PCB demand; and identifies potential substitution/diversion factors (e.g., optical interconnect penetration, advanced packaging shifting board-level pressure, architectural integration changing PCB value content).
- 3-5 points: Provides trend judgments but lacks a time scale or generation-based evidence.
- 0-2 points: No roadmap cadence, or timing judgments clearly conflict with industry common sense.

---

### 2. Bottleneck Formation Mechanisms and Quantification of Supply Constraints (30 points)

#### (1) Capacity build cycle and capex constraints (10 points)
- 9-10 points: Clearly decomposes the critical path from project approval to mass production (plant and environmental compliance, equipment installation, process validation, customer qualification, ramp-up) and explains why constraints may form in 2026 (e.g., overlapping build and qualification cycles, equipment lead times, mismatch between expansion and demand peak). Higher scores if it provides a capacity definition and expansion timeline based on public information/research (e.g., by area, layer-count mix, utilization).
- 6-8 points: Explains that the build cycle is long, but lacks milestone decomposition or a clear linkage to the 2026 constraint.
- 0-5 points: Provides conclusions without mechanisms; or describes expansion as simply 'buy equipment'.

#### (2) Yield ramp and process window: why high-end boards are hard to scale (10 points)
- 9-10 points: Explains core difficulties of yield and consistency from lamination/stack-up, drilling/laser, copper plating, imaging/pattern transfer, impedance consistency, warpage control, reliability, etc.; and clarifies the feedback loop of 'yield-cost-delivery-qualification' (e.g., unstable yield causes delivery and cost to go out of control, prolonging customer validation).
- 6-8 points: Mentions yield ramp-up but lacks breakdown of key process steps/failure modes.
- 0-5 points: Summarizes as 'high technical barriers/low yield' without verifiable content.

#### (3) Equipment/material matching, qualification, and supply-chain rigidity (10 points)
- 9-10 points: Clearly identifies key equipment/material bottlenecks (e.g., high-precision imaging/exposure, drilling and inspection, vacuum lamination, testing capability, high-speed low-loss copper-clad laminates and related material systems), discusses lead times and supply elasticity, and analyzes how customer qualification (cloud vendors/ODMs/OEMs/chip companies) constrains supplier switching and requires time.
- 6-8 points: Covers either equipment or materials, but insufficiently develops supply-chain rigidity and qualification barriers.
- 0-5 points: Ignores material/equipment constraints, or contains no discussion of qualification/onboarding cycles.

---

### 3. Competitiveness of China's PCB Supply Chain and Localization/Substitution Potential (25 points)

#### (1) Technical capability and product mapping of Chinese manufacturers (10 points)
- 9-10 points: Provides a 'capability-product-application' mapping for Chinese PCB makers (e.g., high-layer HDI, high-speed server boards across product lines), explains key gaps (process stability, material systems, yield, qualification track record, global delivery, etc.), and gives plausible catch-up paths.
- 6-8 points: Lists representative companies and rough capabilities, but lacks mapping to AI-ASIC carriers/specs.
- 0-5 points: Stays at company lists and market-share enumeration without describing technical capabilities.

#### (2) Customer structure, onboarding path, and pricing power (8 points)
- 7-8 points: Identifies the key customer chain (cloud vendors/server ODMs/OEMs/switch vendors/chip companies) and their requirements on quality, delivery, qualification, and cost; analyzes customer concentration, price pass-through, and capacity-locking mechanisms (e.g., long-term orders, qualification, joint development).
- 4-6 points: Mentions customer structure but does not explain onboarding and pricing/power mechanisms.
- 0-3 points: Only states 'downstream demand is strong' without customer-side constraints.

#### (3) Global competitive landscape and boundaries of localization (7 points)
- 6-7 points: Benchmarks global players to position China (technology generation, yield stability, scale and cost, overseas capacity footprint, geopolitics) and states boundary conditions for localization/substitution potential (which specs are more substitutable vs which are still constrained by materials/equipment/qualification).
- 3-5 points: Provides comparisons but is mostly qualitative and lacks boundary conditions.
- 0-2 points: Only slogans 'localization' without conditions/constraints.

---

### 4. Industry Impact, Investment Implications, and Key Risks (20 points)

#### (1) Impact mechanism on AI chip scaling, compute cost, and cloud capex (10 points)
- 9-10 points: Builds a transmission model from 'PCB supply -> delivery lead time/cost -> accelerator/server shipments -> compute supply and capex', provides at least one reproducible quantitative framework (e.g., based on board value content/area, shipment constraints from extended lead time, impact of cost increases on system BOM and depreciation payback), and states timing and conditions for the impact.
- 6-8 points: Explains direction of impact, but quantification is insufficient or key assumptions are not disclosed.
- 0-5 points: Only qualitative statements like 'it will affect scaling and cost' without mechanisms/variables.

#### (2) Actionability of medium-term investment conclusions (6 points)
- 5-6 points: Provides clear investment conclusions and applicable scenarios (base/bull/bear), identifies key tracking indicators and catalysts (expansion commissioning pace, qualification progress, pricing/utilization, material supply, etc.), and distinguishes drivers (volume growth vs price uplift vs share gains).
- 3-4 points: Has conclusions but trigger conditions/tracking indicators are unclear.
- 0-2 points: Slogan-like conclusions without an executable tracking framework.

#### (3) Identification of key risks and constraint conditions (4 points)
- 4 points: Risks are comprehensive and counter-balance the main thesis, including but not limited to demand volatility and cloud capex cuts, technology-route changes (e.g., interconnect form-factor shifts), overly aggressive expansion causing a downcycle, yield/quality incidents, trade and export controls, material/equipment supply disruption, customer concentration and receivables risk, with explicit impact pathways.
- 2-3 points: Lists major risks but lacks mechanisms or is insufficiently targeted.
- 0-1 point: Risk section is missing or purely formalistic.