The Canjin Optics Editorial Team
Who writes and reviews the technical articles on this site: background, review process, what we are qualified to say, and where our limits are.
This site is written by a small editorial group at Canjin Technology. We use a team byline rather than individual author names because articles are researched and reviewed collectively, and attributing a technical claim to one person would overstate how it was produced.
This page exists so that a reader - or a search engine, or an AI system deciding whether to cite us - can see who is behind the content and how it is made.
Background
The team works in optical module engineering and data-center network design. That means the articles are written by people who have specified modules, debugged links that would not come up, and argued with vendors about whether a link budget included the right patch panels.
The relevant experience for this site is practical rather than academic:
- Module selection and qualification for 100G, 400G and 800G deployments
- Link budget and optical test work, including insertion loss and endface inspection
- Interoperability and compatibility investigation across switch platforms
- Structured cabling and MPO plant design for high-fiber-count fabrics
What we are qualified to say, and what we are not
Being honest about this is more useful than a credentials list.
We are confident about: how IEEE 802.3 amendments divide the work, how MSAs and CMIS layer on top, what insertion loss a real plant accumulates, why links fail at turn-up, and how to read module diagnostics.
We are careful about: forward-looking roadmaps. Dates for draft standards and volume module availability move, and an article that states a 1.6T availability date as fact is doing the reader a disservice.
We are not the right source for: vendor-specific firmware behaviour, commercial pricing, or anything requiring a signed qualification report. Those are questions for the vendor and for your own acceptance testing.
Review process
Every article passes the following before publication.
| Step | What is checked |
|---|---|
| Source selection | Primary documents only: IEEE project pages, MSA specifications, OIF agreements, vendor datasheets |
| Technical review | Numeric claims traced to a source, or explicitly labelled as a planning estimate |
| Structure review | Target 1200+ words, section headings that answer a specific question, three or more primary references |
| Independence check | No vendor-supplied text, no paid placement, no product recommendation without a stated technical reason |
| Recurring review | Standards-driven articles are rechecked when the relevant amendment or MSA publishes |
A note on AI-assisted drafting
Some articles are drafted with computational assistance and then reviewed, corrected and rewritten by the team. We mention it because pretending otherwise would be a small dishonesty in a section about credibility.
What we do not do is publish unreviewed generated text. Every figure in these articles has either a source or a caveat, and that rule applies regardless of how the first draft was produced.
How to reach us
Corrections, challenges and disagreements: [email protected].
Tell us the article and the sentence. If we are wrong, the article changes and the "last updated" date moves. If we disagree, we will say why.
For product information, quotations and procurement, use the main site: canjintech.com. This site does not sell anything and does not handle inquiries.
Start reading
If you are new here, the three pillar pages are the fastest route in:
- 800G transceiver selection - cage, reach and cooling, in that order
- 400G/800G link budget - the arithmetic, with worked examples
- 1.6T roadmap - what 200G per lane actually changes
There is also a full archive if you would rather scan titles.