This technology isn't for generating images but for measuring what frequencies are present in light.

I'm not 100% sure on the specifics, but it sounds like they are using some mathematical properties of fourier transformations to either broaden the frequency response of sensors or simplify the math required to get the final result.

Hyperspectral cameras are designed to generate images from a matrix of light sensors.

This could maybe lead to spectral cameras (as in a camera where each pixel is the spectrum of light in that pixel), which could then generate images of arbitrary spectra, but I suspect that this sensor is still quite a bit larger than the sensors used in digital cameras these days. Even a hyperspectral camera doesn't really care about what frequencies it measures, it's just able to detect differences in amplitude at those frequencies and either doesn't detect outside of that range or has something filtering the light outside of the range before it reaches the sensors.

I've never worked with spectrometers but physics and chemistry were some of my strongest subjects, so it made some sense to me - but the sentence was definitely written with the intent to say "look peons, I know big science words you do not, and I can string them into a sentence you'll question the legibility of".

So, not bullshit?

Dat malleable logarithmic casing doe.

Yes, there is a lot of potential. There are micro-spectrometers available covering this range, like the MEMS-FPI type spectrometer or the multi-pixel arrays with filters (example: https://www.mantispectra.com/products). But this new kind of detector seems to come with higher resolution, faster readout than the MEMS-FPI, and more sensitivity. It is quite exciting, I'm curious to see if they commercialize it soon.

I worked in contract manufacturing for making electronics.

We had certain contractual yields required. If the yield was below 90% (industry standard), they would pay us for the scrap. The assumption for that being they should have a confidence and reliability in their process that allows it to be higher. If we produced a higher yield than 90%, they got those for free.

Of course, yield numbers and reimbursement terms can be negotiated as part of the contracts.

I am not 100% sure, but I think that the designer bears the cost of the wafer yield.

The PDK is specific to the manufacturer, and I imagine that the risk associated with specific features is known and the yield range can be estimated. A design with more and riskier the features would lower the expected yield, and it makes sense that this risk gets passed onto the designer. The contract may have some protections for the case when the yield is significantly lower than expected because of the manufacturer's fault. Just a guess though, it would be great if someone with real experience can answer.