Last updated: October 1, 2026
A practical counterfeit-component incoming-inspection plan starts with source and traceability, then increases inspection or laboratory testing only when the shipment, application or chain of custody creates extra risk. Visual checks, X-ray, electrical test and decapsulation can reveal anomalies. They cannot recreate a known, unbroken supply chain or prove that every unit in a lot is authentic.
Download the Informic component incoming-inspection risk plan (ZIP). The package contains an editable Excel workbook with risk assessment, receiving inspection, test planning and nonconformance disposition sheets. A direct XLSX download is also available.
What incoming inspection can and cannot do
Incoming inspection can confirm whether the delivered material matches the purchase requirement, identify visible or measurable anomalies and support a documented hold, release or escalation decision. It should not be described as a universal authenticity guarantee.
SAE AS6171 applies when unknown chain of custody or other risk factors create concern about suspect or counterfeit electrical, electronic and electromechanical parts. Its public scope states an important limit: no amount of testing can confirm authenticity in the same way as a known, unbroken chain of custody to the original or authorized source. This is why purchasing controls come before a laboratory test menu.
Use three risk tiers instead of one inspection level
| Tier | Typical situation | Minimum receiving approach | Release boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1: routine | Active part from the manufacturer or an authorized distributor, expected packaging and required records, no visible anomaly. | Match supplier, PO, full MPN, quantity, packaging, labels, date/lot information and receiving condition. | Release under the buyer's normal receiving procedure when requirements pass. |
| Tier 2: elevated | Independent source, partial traceability, old or mixed inventory, repackaging, NRND/EOL exposure or a product-specific concern. | Add detailed document, label, package, marking and dimensional comparison. Approve any targeted test before it starts. | Quality owner documents release, conditional release, further testing or hold. |
| Tier 3: high | Broker/open-market source, missing traceability, obsolete high-value part, safety/regulated application, price anomaly or physical/label inconsistency. | Quarantine on arrival. Use a formal risk assessment and a qualified, risk-targeted inspection/test plan. | No production use until the authorized owner records the evidence and disposition. |
These tiers are a practical starting point, not a replacement for a customer's quality system, contract or regulated-product requirements. The same part can move to a higher tier when its application, source or shipment evidence changes.
Step 1: put the acceptance requirement in the PO or RFQ
Receiving inspection cannot enforce a requirement that was never defined. For each critical line, state:
- complete manufacturer and orderable MPN, including package, grade and packing suffix;
- required quantity and permitted packing format;
- manufacturer or authorized-channel requirement, or the approved exception;
- traceability documents and label photos required before shipment;
- date-code and lot policy when a documented customer or process requirement justifies it;
- new/unused condition, storage and handling requirements;
- whether alternates or mixed lots require separate approval;
- the buyer's right to hold, inspect, test, reject or return nonconforming material.
Use the BOM RFQ checklist to collect these fields. For date codes, moisture controls and packaging, use the date-code, packaging and traceability guide.
Step 2: identify and quarantine the shipment before opening it
Record the supplier, carrier, PO, shipment reference, manufacturer, exact MPN, quantity, lot/date codes and package type. Keep material segregated when the source, identity or condition is unclear. Do not mix it with accepted stock while questions are unresolved.
Photograph the outer carton, inner packaging, all labels, seals and any visible damage before opening. Those images preserve evidence that can be lost during handling and make a supplier discussion more specific.
Step 3: compare documents, labels and packaging as one evidence set
Do not approve a shipment because one label looks convincing. Compare the PO, invoice, packing list, certificate when required, outer label, inner label, pack type, quantity, manufacturer, MPN, date/lot codes and country/origin information where applicable. Look for contradictions between documents and physical material.
TI, NXP and Infineon all direct customers toward manufacturer-authorized sources as the strongest general counterfeit-risk control. Infineon also asks customers reporting suspect product to retain photos of inner and outer labels, packaging and both sides of the device, plus the PO, invoice and shipping paper. That is a useful minimum evidence bundle even when another manufacturer is involved.
Step 4: perform external visual and dimensional inspection
Define the sample basis before inspection. The sample count should reflect the lot, risk tier, customer requirement and applicable procedure. Do not inspect a convenient handful and silently treat the result as proof for the whole lot.
Depending on the package, external checks can include:
- marking content, alignment, consistency and comparison with approved manufacturer information;
- surface texture, unexplained coating, sanding, residue or remarking indicators;
- lead condition, corrosion, coplanarity, solder residue or evidence of prior use;
- package dimensions, pitch, body geometry, pin-one indication and carrier orientation;
- reel, tray, tube, tape pocket, seal, ESD and moisture-barrier condition;
- consistency across the sampled units and across inner/outer packaging.
A visual anomaly is a reason to hold and investigate. A visually clean part is not automatically authentic.
Step 5: select tests that address the identified risk
Do not turn the test plan into a list of every available instrument. Record the suspected failure mode, method, sample basis, known comparison data, acceptance criteria, performer and disposition rule before testing begins.
| Method | What it may reveal | When to consider it | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Detailed visual / dimensional inspection | Marking, coating, lead, package, contamination or construction anomalies visible from outside. | Representative receiving inspection; expand when anomalies appear. | Many counterfeits or reliability problems are not externally visible. |
| Marking-permanency or coating evaluation | Possible remarking or an unexplained surface coating. | Only under an approved method after a visual concern. | Can alter the device surface and must be interpreted against a valid reference. |
| Radiographic (X-ray) inspection | Internal die, wire-bond, lead-frame or gross construction inconsistencies. | Unknown chain of custody or an internal-construction concern. | Requires suitable comparison data and qualified interpretation; it does not prove provenance. |
| XRF material analysis | Elemental composition differences in leads, finish or package materials. | Material or plating anomaly risk. | Composition alone does not prove identity or full electrical performance. |
| Electrical testing | Identity or performance differences under defined conditions. | When valid manufacturer/customer limits and a test method exist. | A limited test at room conditions may miss corner, lifetime or application failures. |
| Scanning acoustic microscopy | Delamination, voiding or internal package anomalies. | Package-integrity risk where the method applies. | Not every package or counterfeit mode is suited to this method. |
| Decapsulation / die examination | Die marking, construction or internal anomaly. | High-risk cases with approved destructive analysis. | Destructive, sample-based and dependent on qualified comparison and interpretation. |
| Board or application validation | Behavior in the actual circuit and operating corners. | When release depends on application performance. | Functional operation does not establish supply-chain authenticity or long-term reliability. |
Step 6: interpret sample results without overstating them
A result applies to the tested units under the stated method and limits. Before extending it to a lot, document how samples were selected, whether the lot is homogeneous, what anomalies were sought, what the method could not detect and what the customer's procedure allows.
When results conflict, stop. For example, matching dimensions do not cancel a traceability gap, and a normal room-temperature electrical result does not cancel evidence of remarking or used material. Keep each evidence type visible instead of averaging incompatible signals into a reassuring score.
Step 7: document hold, release, return or disposition
The record should include the shipment identity, held quantity, quarantine location, observed issue, photos/documents, inspection and test results, supplier response, final disposition, approver and closure date. Suspect material should not be restocked or returned to circulation by default.
ECIA's public summary of SAE AS6496 describes segregation, traceability, return verification and quarantine controls in authorized distribution. Contract, legal and industry-specific requirements can be stricter, so the responsible quality owner should define the actual retention, reporting, return and destruction procedure.
Adjust the plan for the component category
| Category | Extra receiving questions | Possible targeted escalation |
|---|---|---|
| MCU, FPGA and memory | Exact suffix, speed/temperature grade, revision, package, programming status, date/lot consistency. | Electrical identity, programming/ID check, X-ray or destructive analysis when risk justifies it. |
| Analog and power ICs | Package, thermal pad, finish, grade, marking consistency and handling condition. | Parametric/electrical test, X-ray, material analysis or application validation. |
| MOSFET, IGBT, SiC and GaN | Exact die/package variant, lead condition, grade, source and storage evidence. | Electrical limits, construction comparison, X-ray and application/thermal validation. |
| Passives | Value/tolerance, voltage/current rating, dielectric/material code, size, termination and reel labeling. | Measurement of value, loss/ESR, dimensions or material when the identified risk warrants it. |
| Connectors and electromechanical parts | Housing, plating, keying, contact count, terminal geometry, mating and packaging condition. | Dimensional, material/plating, mating, contact-resistance or life testing under an approved plan. |
Three hypothetical examples
Example 1: active MCU from an authorized distributor. The sealed reel, manufacturer/MPN, quantity and required documents all match, and there is no visible anomaly. Route it through Tier 1 receiving checks. Do not add destructive analysis just because the component is valuable.
Example 2: obsolete memory from an open-market broker. Traceability stops at the broker, packaging is repacked and the lot is intended for a regulated product. Hold as Tier 3. Engineering and quality should decide whether redesign or another source is preferable before approving an inspection/test plan.
Example 3: industrial connector from an approved independent source. Documents are partial but the manufacturer, exact MPN, dimensions, plating requirement and pack condition can be checked against a known reference. Treat it as Tier 2 and target the unresolved material/traceability risks instead of ordering semiconductor-specific tests.
Who owns each decision?
| Role | Primary responsibility |
|---|---|
| Procurement | Source, exact MPN, commercial terms, shipment evidence and supplier communication. |
| Receiving / warehouse | Shipment identity, segregation, condition, records and controlled handoff. |
| Quality | Risk tier, inspection/test scope, sampling basis, nonconformance and release/disposition. |
| Engineering | Application criticality, technical limits, validation and design-change decisions. |
| Qualified laboratory | Approved method, equipment control, sample handling, results and limitations. |
A sourcing company can organize source documents, pre-shipment evidence and optional third-party testing where applicable. The customer's authorized engineering and quality owners remain responsible for product-specific acceptance and release.
Frequently asked questions
Should every incoming IC lot receive X-ray inspection?
No. Start with source, traceability, application and shipment evidence. Use X-ray when the assessed risk and suspected anomaly make internal construction relevant, and define the comparison and acceptance basis before testing.
Can a laboratory certify that an electronic component is authentic?
Testing can identify anomalies and support a risk decision, but SAE AS6171's public scope states that no amount of testing can confirm authenticity like a known, unbroken chain of custody to the original or authorized source.
Is a certificate of conformance enough?
Not by itself. Confirm who issued it, whether the supplier and transaction match the required channel, what it covers and whether the physical shipment is consistent with the documents, labels and packaging.
What should happen when one sample fails?
Hold the affected material and follow the approved nonconformance procedure. Record the lot and sample basis, preserve evidence, define any expanded inspection/testing and obtain an authorized disposition before release.
Does passing electrical test prove long-term reliability?
No. The result is limited to the tested units, conditions and parameters. It may not address aging, mishandling, corner conditions, intermittent defects or the application's full reliability requirement.
What evidence should a buyer request before shipment?
Request the complete MPN, source/channel disclosure, quantity and pack type, inner and outer label photos, device photos where appropriate, date/lot information, shipping documents and any contract-required CoC or traceability records.
Request a traceability and incoming-inspection review
Send the exact MPN, quantity, application, source/channel, required delivery country, date/lot and packaging requirements, available traceability records and any photos or anomalies. Informic can organize the sourcing evidence and a proposed risk-based inspection scope for your quality team.
Request an electronic-component sourcing and traceability review or upload your BOM and supporting documents.
Official sources and review basis
- SAE AS6171: suspect/counterfeit EEE parts inspection and test requirements (public scope).
- ECIA quality and counterfeit-mitigation resources.
- ECIA summary of SAE AS6496 for authorized/franchised distribution.
- Texas Instruments anti-counterfeit guidance.
- NXP quality and anti-counterfeit policy.
- Infineon counterfeit-product guidance and evidence request.
- NASA MSFC-STD-3619 counterfeit EEE parts risk-assessment requirements.
Reviewed by Elena, founder of Shenzhen Informic Electronic Limited and active in the electronic-component supply chain since 2012. This guide supports sourcing and receiving-quality planning. Customers retain responsibility for application-specific inspection, testing, sampling, release and regulatory requirements.
