Implementing an integrated development strategy is key to helping the manufacturing sector break free from the “low-end lock-in” dilemma and achieve a leap forward in the value chain. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee explicitly outlined the directions of “intelligent, green, and integrated” development, with integration playing a crucial role in building a modern industrial system. However, how to implement integrated development measures to drive value chain upgrading remains a pressing issue. Existing literature often examines the impact of integration from a single dimension. Consequently, it fails to reveal how integration elements from different dimensions work together synergistically, let alone address the complex causal relationships in which “multiple paths lead to the same outcome”. This study is grounded in a three-dimensional theoretical framework of core integration, extension integration, and field integration, and employs dynamic Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). The empirical analysis uses panel data from 167 listed manufacturing enterprises spanning from 2019 to 2024. Based on this, the study systematically investigates the diverse equivalent pathways through which integrated development drives value chain upgrading, as well as their heterogeneous characteristics. The study indicates that no single element of integration, including data utilization, AI application, servitization, industry-university-research collaboration, industrial agglomeration, or digital economic development, can independently drive a leap in the manufacturing value chain. However, through synergistic interactions among these elements, five high level value chain upgrading pathways can be formed: the Field Innovation, Core Service, Core Digital, Service Innovation, and Data Cluster integrated models. The overall consistency of the model is 0.854, and the coverage is 0.568. None of the five pathways shows a clear time trend. The Core Service and Core Digital integrated models exhibit universality across ownership types, whereas the remaining three pathways show a significant bias toward state owned enterprises. The Core Service integrated model demonstrates universality across technology tiers, whereas the Field Innovation and Core Digital integrated models are significantly biased toward high tech manufacturing, and the Service Innovation and Data Cluster integrated models are significantly biased toward medium and low tech manufacturing. The innovations and contributions of this paper are primarily reflected in three aspects. First, by overcoming the limitations of single-dimensional research, this paper constructs a three-dimensional integrated theoretical framework of “core integration, extension integration, and field integration,” revealing the complex causal mechanisms through which integration elements synergistically drive value chain upgrading from a configurational perspective. Second, this paper identifies five distinct yet convergent pathways for value chain upgrading, along with their temporal stability and adaptation patterns, thereby enriching the contextual implications of integrated development strategies. Third, this study provides empirical evidence for tailored policy measures. Based on the identified pathways, enterprises should be guided to select suitable integrated development models, focusing on strengthening the transformation of field resources in state-owned enterprises, stimulating the endogenous momentum of non-state-owned enterprises, guiding high-tech manufacturing to focus on cutting-edge breakthroughs, and promoting the servitization transformation and cluster empowerment of medium- and low-tech manufacturing. This study holds significant theoretical value and provides practical guidance for overcoming the bottlenecks in the upgrading of China’s manufacturing value chain and for building a modern industrial system.