A day in the life of Tatay in work, Part 1

Anak,

Here's a typical email that I send in my current work. My work is a hybrid of being a techy, and at the same time, being a project manager. Quite fulfulling if you'd ask me. I have been a 'siraniko' since I was a kid - that's what your Lolo and Lola always tell me. Perhaps my brain is wired to being one afterall. :)

Anyway, as mentioned, here's a sample email I send in a day of my work life.

Read on!

love,
Tatay

=================================================================


Hi Team,
A new angle has opened up after looking at the PD’s and CV’s SOT and TD_degrees data.

1. SOT and TD_DEGREES Comparison:
a. SOT reading for both sites are comparable. This would mean that the temperature control system, parameters and collaterals (ie chuck health, chuck calibration, flow rate, etc) in PD’s tool are in good condition. Else, the SOT could have been going haywire if one of the said parameters/collaterals is incorrect; and the bin failure shouldn’t have to be b9740. Further, no statistical difference was noted between the sites on SOT.
<<>> <<>>

b. On the other hand, a 2.8°C difference was noted on the TD_DEGREES means between the sites. At this point, the thermal system may not be the culprit anymore, but this may be more because of the tester’s instrumentation (ie DM250). Per Rex, the test method for TD_DEGREES is to force current through the Tdiode and measure the voltage drop within 5 iterations. Hence, this hypotheses was formed: The DM250 may be passing the calibration but the cal value is marginal to the cal range.
i. Need to check the CMT’s cal values how far are they from the acceptable range as the cal value may be at the borderline. à Jing to work with Shumei.

<<>> <<>>

2. Other findings:
a. The initial commonality data whereby the failing units are at the edge of the wafer is immaterial. This is because all the IT sku are those dice that are on the edge. The affected sku in PD is only IT.
b. No commonality found on the handler site/chuck. The failures occur randomly on different chucks/sites.

PD is trying to do a check-out on a different tester to see if there will be a different response. If the 2nd tool responded positively, it could become the baseline for parametric data comparison later (data from both the product and the tester, ie cal values).