Semiconductor Supply-Chain Risk Assessment
Dependency-level assessment of silicon and compute supply — single points of failure, export-control exposure, and disruption playbooks — priced to the systems and the organization that owns them.
Why this engagement exists
Leaders inherit static vendor maps while the industrial base restructures underneath them. Export-control regimes shift, single-source dependencies deepen, and disruption decisions get made on intuition because nobody has a dependency-level picture of the silicon and compute supply — or of the organization that owns those dependencies.
What it looks like in your organization
- Vendor maps are static documents that nobody trusts for a real decision.
- Export-control changes land as surprises instead of planned responses.
- Single points of failure in fabs, packaging, or compute are known anecdotally but never quantified.
- Disruption planning stops at a risk register with no playable response.
What we do and how it works
We map silicon and compute dependencies on SiliconAIR hardware units and a GENOMIA picture of the organization that owns them. The output is a dependency map, an export-control and geopolitical exposure assessment, dual-source priorities, and disruption playbooks — not a risk register. SiliconAIR prices to the systems; GENOMIA prices to the organization; neither is flattened into the other.
The engagement includes
- System and organization scoping (hardware units + GENOMIA band)
- Silicon and compute dependency mapping: fabs, packaging, tools, compute
- Export-control and geopolitical exposure assessment
- Single-point-of-failure analysis across the supply graph
- Dual-source priorities and disruption playbooks leadership can run
What you take away
Every deliverable is named, formatted, and tied to the outcome it enables. Nothing ships as a deck with no use.
Silicon and compute dependency map
Dependency mapFabs, packaging, EDA tools, compute supply, and the organizational nodes that own each dependency — mapped at dependency level, not vendor level.
You see the actual structure of your silicon and compute supply, including the dependencies you did not know you had.
Export-control and geopolitical exposure assessment
Exposure assessmentWhere the supply graph intersects export-control regimes and geopolitical risk, with exposure quantified per dependency.
Regime changes and geopolitical events become planned responses instead of emergencies.
Dual-source and investment priorities
Prioritized recommendationsWhich single points of failure to dual-source or invest against first, sequenced by exposure and cost.
Capital goes to the dependencies that actually reduce risk, in a defensible order.
Disruption playbooks
PlaybooksPlayable response sequences for the disruption scenarios that matter to you — not a risk register entry.
When a disruption hits, leadership runs a rehearsed response instead of convening a crisis meeting.
How this engagement runs
Name the systems and the org
Week 1Hardware-trust units cover the systems in scope; a GENOMIA size × complexity band covers the organization that owns them. Both scale; neither is flattened.
A scoped picture of what is being mapped and who owns it.
Map dependencies
Weeks 1–3Fabs, packaging, tools, compute, and the organizational nodes that own them are mapped into a dependency graph with ownership and criticality.
The supply structure is visible end to end, with ownership attached.
Test exposure
Weeks 3–4Export control, geopolitical shock, and single points of failure are tested against the graph. Exposure is quantified per dependency.
You know which dependencies are exposed, to what, and how badly.
Write the playbooks
Weeks 4–5Dual-source priorities and disruption options become playbooks leadership can actually run, closed with a readout and handoff.
Risk reduction is sequenced and disruption response is rehearsed, not theoretical.
How the fee is built
The engagement fee moves on three multipliers — sensitivity, involvement, and organization type — and the platform units the work consumes are their own lines. Nothing is hidden inside a flat number.
Sensitivity
×0.90 – ×1.30 on the engagement feeSensitivity sets the handling envelope around the whole engagement: how data moves, where evidence lives, who can touch it, and what containment we must maintain. Higher sensitivity means cleared handling, segregated evidence, and slower, more deliberate operations — real cost that a flat fee would hide.
Open information. Standard handling, no containment overhead.
Proprietary business information. NDA-grade handling and controlled evidence storage.
Compliance-bound data. Framework controls and audit-ready evidence handling shape the work.
Defense-grade pathways. Cleared handling, boundary containment, and evidence segregation inside your perimeter.
Involvement
×0.85 – ×1.35 on the engagement feeInvolvement is how much Multipolar operator time is on the hook. Counsel at checkpoints is a different commitment than embedded delivery inside your team, your systems, and your cadence. The multiplier tracks senior hours actually committed — not a markup.
We advise and interpret; your team executes. Senior counsel at defined checkpoints.
We run the engagement end to end, with your stakeholders at the decision points.
Embedded delivery. Our operators work inside your team until the outcome is actually in place.
Organization type
×0.85 – ×1.25 on the engagement feeThe same technical work lands differently depending on who is buying it. Federal and defense engagements carry procurement, compliance, security review, and stakeholder alignment that a mid-market engagement does not. The multiplier prices the coordination and accountability surface, not the analysis.
Fewer stakeholders, faster decisions, lighter coordination overhead.
The baseline: standard commercial engagement surface.
Public-sector procurement and multi-agency stakeholder surface.
Investment-platform cadence: deal-driven timelines and IC audiences.
Joint-delivery and enablement motions with partner delivery teams.
Assurance functions: evidence standards and underwriting audiences.
Federal procurement, compliance crosswalks, and multi-office alignment.
Mission-critical review, security handling, and acquisition-process alignment.
Scope & scale of platform units
The largest component of most totalsEvery engagement consumes platform units — CYBAIR workloads, AIR organization bands, GENOMIA twins, WINS scenarios, SiliconAIR systems. Units track your estate, not our appetite for flat pricing: an 8-workload assessment and a 50-workload assessment are different engagements and are priced as such. You set the scope in the configurator; the total moves with it, and nothing is quietly under-scoped to fit a number.
Simulation compute
Estimated until configured · billed on actualsWINS simulations carry real compute costs that scale with scenario count, branching depth, and campaign length. A focused single-scenario game and a sustained multi-agent campaign are orders of magnitude apart. Facilitation and after-action are in the fee; compute is estimated once the game is configured, then billed on actuals — you pay for what actually runs, never a padded average.
Platform units in this engagement
Units track your estate, not our appetite for flat pricing. You set the scope; the total moves with it. Each unit below is consumed by this engagement and billed as its own line.
The organizational twin: people, skills, systems, dependencies, and projects modeled as a living graph.
Headcount or agency count sets the size band; structural complexity multiplies it. Multi-system, contested, or mission-critical environments cost more to model because they are more to model.
Each hardware-bound system profiled for trust, provenance, and silicon posture — the hardware dimension of CYBAIR.
The number of systems you nominate for assessment. This is posture on systems you run or plan to run — not Phase 0 chip-program scoping.
What the engagement fee covers
- Scoping, workshops, and interpretation
- Every deliverable listed on this page
- Cross-framework mapping where the package includes compliance
- Executive translation — board, program-office, or IC language
- Handoff and a defensible next-step recommendation
What it does not cover
- Platform units consumed by the work (shown as their own lines)
- WINS simulation compute (estimated, then billed on actuals)
Frequently asked questions
No. It is a dependency-level map with export-control and geopolitical exposure quantified, plus disruption playbooks. Vendor lists are inputs; the dependency graph and the responses are the product.
Ready to brief us on the Semiconductor Supply-Chain Risk Assessment?
We choose who we work with and confirm scope, capacity, and final pricing in the briefing.