The first draft of the CHIPS Program Office's guiding "Vision for Success" paper was a historical analysis of how the U.S. lost its semiconductor manufacturing edge. This diagnostic approach was replaced with a forward-looking, target-setting document to be more practical and less academic for stakeholders.

It's a common error to conflate the CHIPS Act and the October 2022 chip controls. The CHIPS Act was a legislative effort for domestic manufacturing resilience. The executive export controls were a separate national security policy focused on denying China access to high-end compute for military applications.

Treat your product and engineering teams as stewards of the company's most precious capital: their time. A capital allocation framework forces leadership to ask if this "investment" is being spent on the initiatives with the highest strategic return, not just fulfilling requests.

The CHIPS Act deliberately de-emphasized funding for critical materials. This was a pragmatic choice driven by tax law: material processing projects don't qualify for the 25% investment tax credit that fabs get. Covering this gap with direct grants would have been too costly for the program's limited budget.

The central geopolitical and economic conflict of the modern era revolves around the control of semiconductor chips and fabrication plants (fabs). These have surpassed oil as the most critical strategic resource, dictating technological and military superiority.

True economic security isn't just about production capacity; it's about having the "capability"—the qualified know-how and processes. This drastically shortens the 2-3 year time-to-recovery after a supply chain disruption, as qualifying a new fab for a specific product is the most time-consuming step.

To find valuable AI use cases, start with projects that save time (efficiency gains). Next, focus on improving the quality of existing outputs. Finally, pursue entirely new capabilities that were previously impossible, creating a roadmap from immediate to transformative value.

A core investment framework is to distinguish between 'pull' companies, where the market organically and virally demands the product, and 'push' companies that have to force their solution onto the market. The former indicates stronger product-market fit and a higher potential for efficient, scalable growth.

Demonstrating a collaborative approach to "friend-shoring," some allied governments actively asked the U.S. CHIPS Program Office to refer semiconductor projects that were considered but ultimately not funded. These countries were eager to use their own subsidies to attract manufacturing capacity that the U.S. couldn't accommodate.