A quick snapshot to get us started

• Give a one-sentence summary of the product ramp or yield problem that prompted this review
• How soon do you expect device volume to exceed your current test-floor capacity Options: Within 3 months, 3 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, More than 12 months, Unsure
• Who in your organization carries final accountability for cost-per-device and capital approval Options: VP Operations, Director Test Engineering, CFO/Finance, Site General Manager, Cross-functional committee, Other
• Describe the top two commercial risks you are watching right now, for example margin pressure or missed ship dates
• On a scale from 1 to 5, how urgent is avoiding test-related customer returns in the next quarter Options: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Where the current test floor shows its limits

• If your current tester missed one important failure mode tomorrow, what would that cost you in returns, rework, or customer claims
• Map your existing tester fleet by role: primary functional tester, single-purpose instruments, and legacy units in production Options: Primary functional tester, Single-purpose fixtures, Wafer probe only systems, Legacy mixed-use, Other
• Where do you see the biggest mismatch: pin count, per-pin instrument accuracy, or test sequence latency Options: Pin count, Per-pin accuracy, Test sequence latency, Fixture/handler integration, All of the above
• How many DUT sites run in parallel today on your most common final-test program Options: 1 site, 2-4 sites, 5-8 sites, 9-16 sites, More than 16 sites, Unsure
• If nothing changes, what operational consequence do you expect in 6 months—production shortfall, overtime, or emergency capital spend Options: Production shortfall, Increased overtime, Emergency capital spend, Postponed ramps, Other

Which tests and pins actually drive your test time

• Which specific test sequences or DUT pins contribute most to long program run-time on your current tester
• When you run characterization on bench instruments, how often does the test vector that passes on bench fail or time out on the production tester Options: Rarely, Occasionally, Often, Very often, We do not compare bench vs tester
• Walk me through the last time a correlation gap blocked production, what happened and how long it took to restore acceptance criteria
• Estimate the percentage of overall test time attributed to serial measurements caused by multiplexed instruments Options: 0-5%, 6-15%, 16-30%, 31-50%, More than 50%, Unsure
• If a new platform matched coverage but only reduced test time by 5 percent, would that be enough to move forward Options: Yes, No, Only with additional cost savings elsewhere, Depends on capital timing

Who will make this transition happen on your side

• Who are the engineers, lab technicians, and site leads that must stay engaged during evaluation and deployment, and what will break if one of them is pulled away
• How many full-time engineering weeks of effort do you estimate are available internally for test program migration in the next six months Options: 0, 1-4 weeks, 5-8 weeks, 9-16 weeks, More than 16 weeks
• Which training or certification requirements does your team require before they accept new test equipment in production Options: None, Vendor on-site training, Formal certification, Shadowed trials only, Other
• Who on your team has authority to pause the pilot if a safety or compliance concern appears during on-floor trials Options: Site safety officer, Test engineering lead, Operations manager, Quality manager, Other
• If you do not have the internal engineering capacity, would an external engineering services engagement be acceptable to meet your timeline Options: Yes, Maybe with budget approval, No

Constraints that would stop this project before it starts

• What single missing capability, approval, or site constraint on your side would stop this project immediately
• Which integration dependencies must be satisfied before we can run an on-floor trial, for example handler control, MES connectivity, or probe station interfaces Options: Handler control, MES connectivity, Probe station interface, Fixture/handler mappings, None, Other
• Do you have APIs or drivers available for your MES and handler systems, and who owns them internally Options: APIs ready, owned by IT, APIs partly available, owned by automation, No APIs, integration required, Unsure
• Are there regulatory, safety, or cleanroom access approvals that typically add more than two weeks to on-site work Options: Yes, frequently, Sometimes, Rarely, No approvals required
• If capital approval slips by a quarter, would that kill this opportunity or just delay it Options: Kill it, Delay it, Re-scope to smaller pilot, Unsure

What other options are you actively weighing

• If you decide to stay with your current testers, what would have to be true about their capacity, accuracy, or cost for you to keep them in place
• Which of these alternatives have you evaluated or are still considering Options: Replace with a new platform like ours, Buy more of the incumbent tester, Consolidate multiple testers on one platform, In-house retrofit development, Increase shifts/overtime, Contract capacity externally
• Has anyone on your team proposed solving this with internal engineering effort instead of an outside vendor Options: Yes, with timeline estimate, Yes, but no timeline yet, No, Unsure
• Which incumbent capability do you believe still gives the best value today, and why
• What would change for you if the internal option required the same capital but twice the internal engineering time Options: We would still prefer internal, We would prefer vendor, We would re-evaluate both, Unsure

Evaluation rules and acceptance must-haves

• If a pilot proves your target test-time reduction and correlation targets, who has sign-off authority to move from pilot to purchase Options: VP Operations, Director Test Engineering, Procurement + Finance, Site GM, Cross-functional committee
• Which concrete acceptance metrics will you use for the evaluation: test time, yield correlation, instrument accuracy, space footprint, or total cost of ownership Options: Test time, Yield correlation, Instrument accuracy, Floor space, Total cost of ownership, Other
• What numeric thresholds must be met to pass the pilot, for example percent reduction in test time or maximum delta in correlation
• How long of a production trial do you require before declaring acceptance Options: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2-3 months, Depends on product
• If the pilot meets all technical criteria but capital is not approved for six months, would you accept a rental/lease for the interim Options: Yes, Maybe with finance approval, No

Decision levers and the shortest path to go/no-go

• If the pilot demonstrates the expected cost-per-device reduction, what internal approvals remain and how long do they typically take Options: Procurement only (2-4 weeks), Finance sign-off (1-2 months), Executive committee (1-3 months), Capital planning calendar (3-6 months), Unsure
• Which budget type would this purchase draw from, operating expense or capital expense Options: Capital expense (CapEx), Operating expense (OpEx), Split across both, Unsure
• Who are the internal blockers that most commonly delay similar purchases at your sites Options: Finance, Procurement, Facilities/cleanroom, IT/security, Operations, Other
• What is the earliest realistic buy date if the pilot and approvals align Options: Immediately, Within 1 month, 1-3 months, 3-6 months, Later than 6 months
• What single negotiation point would accelerate signing this quarter, for example payment terms, staged delivery, or fixed acceptance SLAs Options: Payment terms, Staged delivery, Fixed acceptance SLAs, Pilot-to-purchase credit, Other

Signals during trials that make or break the project

• What test-floor signal during an on-site trial would cause you to stop and revert to the legacy tester Options: Yield regression, Unrecoverable correlation gap, Safety incident, Integration outage, Other
• How will you monitor and report trial outcomes, and who receives the trial status updates Options: Daily engineering report, Weekly executive summary, MES-integrated dashboards, Ad hoc alerts, Other
• Which escalation path should we use if a critical issue appears during a production trial Options: Site lead to vendor support, Direct engineer-to-engineer Slack, Formal change request and pause, Other
• If the pilot fails to meet acceptance by the agreed window, what is your preferred recovery option: extend trial, re-scope, or stop Options: Extend trial, Re-scope technical effort, Stop and reassess, Other
• Would you like us to draft a concise trial plan with named owners and success gates for your review Options: Yes, please, Maybe later, No

• desired_state
• current_state
• decision_readiness
• stakeholders
• gaps
• success_criteria
• desired_state
• success_criteria
• decision_readiness
• current_state
• stakeholders
• gaps
• stakeholders
• current_state
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness

• Deliver and install test system hardware
• Install high pin-count test head
• Site utility and cleanroom hookup
• Execute factory and site acceptance tests (FAT/SAT)
• Migrate existing test programs to the platform
• Calibrate per-pin source and measurement instruments
• Configure multi-site parallel test and site balancing
• Establish correlation with bench characterization and rebaseline limits
• Configure test data logging and export formats
• Integrate platform with prober/handler equipment
• Deliver on-site operator and maintenance training
• Provide spare parts kit and preventive maintenance plan
• Capital financing and incentive qualification

Deliver and install test system hardware

• Do you have a single-line diagram (SLD) and confirmed floor space showing power, chiller and exhaust taps for the system installation? Options: Yes, No, Not yet - need support
• Which sites are planned to receive the system (facility ID and cleanroom class)?
• How many production lines or test cells will be served by this delivered system? Options: 1, 2, 3-5, 6+
• Provide the expected delivery window for hardware and any blackout dates when floor work cannot occur.
• Who on your team will be the facilities lead responsible for rigging, floor anchors, and mechanical coordination?

Install high pin-count test head

• Confirm that maximum DUT pin counts and pin-mapping files for each SKU are available for head configuration. Options: Yes - files provided, Yes - files forthcoming, No
• Specify the maximum required pin count per test head and per site for the device families to be supported. Options: <128 pins, 128-512, 513-2048, 2049+
• Describe any probe-card or handler interface constraints (signal routing, pin pitch, pogo footprint) that will affect head integration.
• List required mechanical or thermal attachments to the test head (heat sink, liquid cooling manifolds) and their specifications.
• Estimate the allowed test-head exchange window for maintenance in minutes during production operations. Options: Hot-swap (no downtime), <30 minutes, 30-120 minutes, >120 minutes

Site utility and cleanroom hookup

• When do you need compressed air, chilled water, and 3-phase power available for factory acceptance testing (FAT) and site installation?
• Are there existing single-line diagrams (SLD) and floor utility taps we must follow for chiller, power, and exhaust connections? Options: Yes - SLD provided, Yes - SLD exists but not provided, No
• Select the cleanroom classification for the install location. Options: ISO 5/Class 100, ISO 6/Class 1000, ISO 7/Class 10000, Non-cleanroom
• Indicate any building restrictions for rigging weight, ceiling height, or vibration isolation that will affect placement.
• Identify required site services for waste fluids, drain points, or chemical handling used during calibration or maintenance.

Execute factory and site acceptance tests (FAT/SAT)

• State the FAT acceptance criteria at the factory (throughput target, power checks, functional smoke tests) and list numeric thresholds.
• What SAT pass rate on production-like wafers or packages will be required to accept the installation? Options: 98%+, 95-98%, 90-95%, Custom threshold
• Describe the test vehicle (wafer type or packaged device), lot size and lot traceability required during SAT.
• Who will sign and archive the FAT and SAT reports and what evidence package is required (test logs, ECGs, STDF files)?
• Provide the target timeline from hardware delivery to completion of SAT in weeks. Options: 1-2, 3-4, 5-8, 8+

Migrate existing test programs to the platform

• Which legacy test program formats or vector languages need migration (for example existing code files or vector exports)? Options: Standard test vector format (STIL), Custom binary, Legacy ATE format, Other
• How many unique program variants or device SKUs require migration and support? Options: 1-5, 6-20, 21-100, 100+
• How will you validate functionally equivalent results after migration (cycle count target, per-parameter delta thresholds in mV/nA, or pass/fail correlation %)? Options: Cycle time within 5%, Param deltas within specified mV/nA, Binary pass/fail correlation >=95%, Other
• Describe availability of your test engineers and access to source test code for migration (hours per week, on-site/off-site).
• Estimate migration effort in full-time-equivalent (FTE) weeks or by number of test modules. Options: <4 FTE-weeks, 4-12 FTE-weeks, 13-26 FTE-weeks, >26 FTE-weeks

Calibrate per-pin source and measurement instruments

• Specify instrument accuracy requirements per pin for voltage, current and timing (for example ±mV, ±nA, ±ps) that the system must meet.
• Confirm the acceptance tolerances after calibration (for example voltage offset < X mV, current accuracy within Y%) and name the reference standards to be used.
• Which calibration standards or labs will be used (for example NIST-traceable DMMs or certified source meters) and do you require certificates included? Options: NIST-traceable certificates, Internal lab only, Third-party lab, No certificates required
• Indicate preferred maintenance window frequency for preventive recalibration and allowed downtime. Options: Monthly, Quarterly, Semi-annual, Annual
• Who will own ongoing calibration records and instrument traceability within your quality system?

Configure multi-site parallel test and site balancing

• Which multi-site configuration is required (number of sites per handler/prober) and maximum parallel DUTs per cycle? Options: 1-site, 2-4 sites, 5-16 sites, 17+ sites
• Describe preferred site-balancing strategies for mixed-SKU runs (fixed site allocation, dynamic balancing by DUT test time).
• Indicate the number of different process flows that will run concurrently and affect site balancing (probe vs final test, varied test times). Options: 1, 2, 3-5, 6+
• Indicate the acceptable per-site throughput variance percentage that should trigger a balancing action. Options: <1%, 1-5%, 5-10%, >10%
• List the handlers or probers (model family or control-interface description) you plan to integrate for synchronous multi-site operation.

Establish correlation with bench characterization and rebaseline limits

• Identify the bench characterization artifacts to correlate (bench DVM traces, wafer-probe IV curves, temperature sweep logs) and their file formats. Options: CSV, MAT, STDF, Other
• State the target correlation metrics between platform results and bench characterization (for example mean delta in mV, sigma, Cpk) that will be used for rebaseline decisions.
• Confirm the acceptance criteria for correlation that will allow using the new platform limits in production (for example per-parameter delta <= X, pass-rate change < Y%).
• List the characterization test fixtures or load boards required for correlation studies and their connector mappings.
• Identify who will approve updated test limits after rebaseline and how approvals will be recorded. Options: Production manager, Test engineering lead, Quality engineering, Cross-functional signoff

Configure test data logging and export formats

• Which test data formats do you require for production and analytics (for example STDF, CSV, or custom schema)? Options: STDF, CSV, Binary, Custom
• How often must test logs be exported to your MES or data lake: real-time, batch hourly, or end-of-shift? Options: Real-time, Batch hourly, End-of-shift, Daily
• Detail the expected fields and minimum trace data to retain per DUT (waveforms, param-level readings, error codes).
• Which network protocols or APIs does your integration endpoint accept for data ingestion (for example SFTP, REST, Kafka)? Options: SFTP, REST, Kafka, Other
• Indicate your retention policy and any data privacy or export-control requirements for test logs and correlation data. Options: 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, Custom

Integrate platform with prober/handler equipment

• Which prober or handler control interfaces are in use at your site (for example GPIB, RS-232, Ethernet command API, SECS/GEM)? Options: GPIB, RS-232, Ethernet API, SECS/GEM, Other
• Describe any handler-specific timing or handshake constraints that will affect per-DUT sequencing and throughput.
• State the number of different handler/prober models that must be certified for integration during deployment. Options: 1, 2-3, 4-10, 10+
• Provide expected cycle-time targets including handler move time and per-DUT test time that integration must meet.
• Specify who will provide access to handler control documentation, PLC diagrams and any required credentials for integration work.

Deliver on-site operator and maintenance training

• State the number of operator and maintenance personnel who require training and the shift coverage to be certified. Options: 1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 10+
• Which training modalities do you prefer: instructor-led on-site, virtual instructor-led, or self-paced e-learning? Options: On-site instructor-led, Virtual instructor-led, Self-paced e-learning, Blended
• Detail the competencies to be certified at course completion (safe start, test program load, emergency stop, basic troubleshooting).
• Specify language and documentation needs for training materials and operator manuals. Options: English, Multi-language, English + local language, Other
• Identify the authorized sign-off authority for training completion and operator certification.

Provide spare parts kit and preventive maintenance plan

• List critical spare components you require in the initial kit (test head pogo modules, power supplies, harnesses, fuses).
• How many production days of uptime should the spare kit support before restocking is required? Options: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months
• Detail preventive maintenance tasks and recommended frequency (cleaning, calibration checks, firmware updates). Options: Monthly, Quarterly, Semi-annual, Annual
• Indicate whether you require vendor-managed spare inventory on consignment at site. Options: Yes, No, Maybe - discuss
• Who on your operations team will be the spare-parts custodian and what restocking SLA do you require?

• Purchase Agreement
• Order Confirmation
• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Equipment Acceptance & Correlation Plan
• Capital Approval Exhibit
• Governance & Steering Committee Charter
• Payment Schedule & Financing Agreement
• Warranty & Support Agreement
• Export & Trade Compliance Addendum
• Change Order Agreement
• Final Acceptance Certificate

• Go-Live Health Check (Weeks 1-4)
• First Measurement Review (Weeks 4-10)
• 90-Day Realization and Incumbent Wind-Down
• Quarterly Operational Review (Ongoing)

• Close or re-scope any support tickets older than 60 days and document next steps for partially mitigated items.
• Provide a calibrated correlation report comparing platform measurements to bench characterization for the prioritized SKUs.
• Schedule the next in-floor production trial window and the data-collection plan for that trial.
• Present 90-day outcome metrics
• Document whether yield rate and instrument measurement accuracy meet the targets recorded in the Go-Live Acceptance stage or require defined remediation.
• Formally confirm incumbent tester decommissioning status and the completion of any required data migration or archival steps.
• Produce a prioritized backlog of enhancement requests with target delivery windows and an agreed support cadence.
• Publish the 90-day outcomes report with pass/fail status per metric and a remediation plan for any misses.
• Execute the incumbent wind-down checklist including contract/renewal decisions, data archival or migration confirmation, and closure of fallback access.
• Create the prioritized enhancement backlog and assign target delivery quarters for each item.
• Trend review for core metrics
• Validate whether test time per device and customer return rate attributable to test escapes are within acceptable bounds or require action.
• Reduce the count of high-severity support tickets and confirm timelines for remaining items.
• Agree the prioritized optimization work for the coming quarter with clear success measures.
• Deliver the quarterly metrics dashboard with trendlines for test time per device and customer return rate attributable to test escapes.
• Update the enhancement backlog priorities and commit delivery quarters for the top three items.
• Re-confirm agreed success criteria and ownership
• All deployment artifacts verified as present and configured or a remediation plan created for any gaps.
• A concise list of critical blockers with target resolution dates is agreed for the next 14 days.
• Owners for each success criterion from Go-Live Acceptance are confirmed.
• Publish the deployment verification checklist with pass/fail entries and remediation dates.
• Create incident tickets for each high-severity blocker with target resolution dates within two weeks.
• Collect and circulate the first-week test-run logs and a summary of any test-program failures for offline review.
• Present first measurement data
• Establish whether test time per device and parallel site count are trending toward the targets recorded in the Go-Live Acceptance stage.
• Document root causes for any KPI shortfalls and agree timebound corrective actions.
• Confirm the next validation checkpoint and required evidence for the acceptance path.
• Deliver a remediation plan for each KPI gap, listing steps, expected impact, and completion dates.
• Open issue burn-down and residual risks
• Support ticket and defect burn-down
• Deployment and migration validation
• Correlation and stability check
• Incumbent system wind-down confirmation
• Early adoption and usage signals
• Enhancement backlog prioritization
• Root-cause diagnosis for KPI gaps
• Optimization experiments and measurement plan
• Enhancement requests and prioritized backlog
• Blockers and open issues triage
• Agree corrective actions and timelines
• Confirm path to acceptance gate
• Agree operational support and optimization cadence
• Close-out and next steps
• Agree immediate remediation actions