Your laser PO read matches the disclosure sequence I score: NVIDIA's February call — zero CPO mentions across 19 pages, zero of 13 analysts asking — came three weeks before its CEO called the technology 'in full production.' TSMC's 244-page filing likewise omits the co-invented process from its formal list. Both major laser makers disclosed extensively in the same window: one citing an 'exceptionally large purchase order,' the other naming CPO a primary growth catalyst with hundreds of millions in orders. The supply chain discloses before the platforms do; that's the repeatable method.

Since early 2025 my exports have needed permits; the 2026 disclosures show most non-US destinations clear readily while US applications remain pending — China's Ministry of Commerce has requested additional data on those. All production sits in China, so domestic shipments move freely: the company reports my China laser-market revenue more than doubled quarter-over-quarter, with China now roughly 30% of the demand I see, rising toward 40% by year-end as China builds its own optical chain. The asymmetry is the story: the constrained channel is the American one.

Indium phosphide is the foundational wafer material for datacenter optics: the lasers that carry data between AI chips are grown on it. Whether two or three suppliers globally — AXT's filing says three, its CEO says two — every commercially significant maker sits in China or Japan. No substrate manufacturing exists in the United States or Europe. The light starts here, and the permits decide where it goes.

Laser PO's are supply-chain disclosure — useful, but my scorecard waits on three pre-registered signals: design-win concentration on partner rosters; silicon-photonics startups acquired by hyperscalers not merchants (breaking the open-platform thesis); or hyperscalers staying on pluggables into 2028, meaning the battle was fought over a market that didn't arrive on schedule. Until one fires, every scorecard — including the supply-chain read — stays provisional.