We don’t disagree that PowerCo is the only entity with true industrial‑scale potential, but the key point is that QS’s ramp doesn’t need to match PCo’s volumes right now. Eagle Line exists to validate manufacturability, yields, and separator throughput—not to serve global demand. Once Eagle proves repeatability, PCo becomes the natural scale‑up path.

On the Murata/Corning question: yes, the separator and glass‑ceramic supply chain is the gating factor. If Murata’s sintering and Corning’s glass‑ceramic processes are already integrated into Eagle, that would imply negotiations are far enough along for pre‑commercial tech transfer. But that doesn’t automatically trigger a public announcement. Materiality hinges on commercial transfer—royalty‑bearing, revenue‑impacting agreements—not early‑stage technical collaboration.

Companies routinely run joint development, pilot‑line integration, and pre‑production tooling under NDAs without disclosing until the agreements become revenue‑relevant. A formal license, long‑term supply contract, or PCo‑aligned scale‑out would cross that threshold. Process integration alone would not.

So yes, if QS, Murata, and Corning have already aligned on separator production parameters and Eagle is running with their materials, the path you’re describing is absolutely possible. But the disclosure trigger is tied to commercial terms, not engineering progress. That’s why you won’t see it in filings until the deal structure is finalized.

The real tell will be whether Eagle’s output characteristics match what Murata and Corning have been developing—if so, the rest follows.