Counterfeit prevention starts with sourcing, then incoming identification. Labels, markings, and packaging provide clues but may be imitated. One functional pass cannot establish manufacturer-compliant materials, life, or storage/transport. Prefer manufacturers/authorized channels and link sources, orders, lots, and board usage; this is more valuable than one package photo.
Verify authorization for the specific manufacturer and entity
TI's public anti-counterfeit guidance encourages direct TI or authorized-distributor purchasing, noting possible counterfeit/unreliable products outside authorized sources and limits to warranty/support. This is TI-specific guidance, not proof of other brands' supplier status. Check each manufacturer's current authorized directory, regions, and entities separately.
“Genuine original parts” on supplier websites is not authorization evidence. Verify full company names, supplying entities, and actual order chains. Authorization for one brand does not cover another. Longer resale chains more easily lose storage, unpacking, and mixed-lot records. During shortages, define evidence gaps and approval responsibility before independent-channel purchases, not generic consent after materials enter production.
Which fields link purchasing to boards?
| node | Fields to Link | Questions That Can Be Answered |
|---|---|---|
| Requirements and Approval | Complete part numbers, suffixes, quantities, and permitted substitutions | Which controlled configuration is purchased |
| Supply Source | Supplying entities, channel checks, orders, and transaction records | Who provides the source and how to confirm |
| Incoming Batch | Labels, date codes, lots, packaging, and quantities | Whether received items match the order |
| Splitting and Line Setup | Sub-packaging, work orders, quantities, and loss | Which components were used in which production batches |
| Delivery and Leftover Material | Board/batch IDs, returns, leftovers, and abnormalities | What range can be controlled when issues occur |
Match traceability depth to product risk/contracts. Individual serialization is not mandatory for every component, but know record resolution. Batch-only records cannot later support board-level precision claims. Splitting reels, retaping, repacking, and merging leftovers need parent-child links. One internal lot label must not erase original sources.
Receiving inspection checks consistency, not authenticity by itself
Check full part numbers, packages, suffixes, quantities, and packaging first, then label/date-code/lot/device-mark consistency. Moisture-sensitive parts also need bag seals, humidity indicators, and history. Loose/reworked parts need sources/handling. Abnormality photos should retain complete packages, details, and linked labels, not isolated devices without lot identity.
Visual differences may reflect legitimate factories, revisions, or marking changes, or indicate risk. Different fonts alone do not prove counterfeiting. Verify through manufacturers or suitable technical channels and plan risk-based further examination. Functional, electrical, X-ray, and destructive methods have different coverage; choose methods/samples for specific suspicions. Passing inspections support inspected scope, not absolute whole-lot authenticity.
Isolation and decision table for abnormal materials
| Anomaly | Immediate Control | Input for subsequent decisions |
|---|---|---|
| Order and Suffix Mismatch | Pause launch and distinguish inventory | Electrical/package/temperature ratings and substitution approvals |
| Batch or label relationship unclear | Save original packaging and samples, prohibit mixing batches | Supply chain proof and further verification |
| Moisture-sensitive packaging anomaly | Isolate and Retain History | Component handling requirements and recoverable conditions |
| Emergency supply via independent channel | Do not merge with approved inventory before approval | Risk assessment, identification plans, and responsibility boundaries |
| Suspicion found after launch | Control work-in-progress and delivery batches | Usage destinations, actual exposure scope, and disposition |
Quarantine does not declare parts counterfeit; it prevents expansion of evidence/usage uncertainty. Record who raised concerns, confirmed facts, and pending checks. Before returns, scrapping, or analysis, retain agreed samples/evidence; otherwise later findings may lack identifiable links.
Clearly separate responsibilities for consigned and procured materials
For consigned parts, customers primarily own sourcing, but receiving, quantities, storage, production use, and manufacturing abnormalities still need agreement. Procurement services need permitted channels, brand/part numbers, substitution requests, and deliverable transaction records. Both parties should define loss, replenishment, surplus, unpacking, and notifications, especially for valuable/obsolete parts. “Turnkey” or “customer responsible” cannot summarize every duty.
Purchasing authorization differs from technical approval. Approval of a channel does not necessarily permit suffix changes, mixed lots, or substitutes; engineering approval of a substitute does not authorize every source. Link channel approval, material equivalence, and manufacturing-use approval separately to reduce later ambiguity. For lifecycle changes, also see PCN and end-of-life notice.
Recording precision determines abnormality control range
Engineering example: a project purchases 400 authorized-channel devices and 100 from another specially approved source for 500 single-device boards. If records identify boards using the latter 100, later source concerns can initially contain linked objects and assess expansion. If lots are merged with only “500 total” retained, one cannot guess which 100 boards to select; initial containment may need the entire mixed-use scope.
This does not judge any channel's authenticity; it illustrates traceability's effect on disposition costs. During initial trials, test order-to-delivery links: choose a board ID and retrieve component lots, then trace one lot's usage. Retain gaps/corrections so real incidents do not reveal discarded labels or merged leftovers too late.
Procurement review and first article delivery list
- Requirement lists retain complete part numbers, brands, packages, suffixes, and permitted-substitution boundaries
- Source checks retain dates, entities, channels, and order links, not only promotional screenshots
- Receiving records include packaging, lots, condition, and disposition, with traceable parent-child packages
- First articles confirm actual materials against approved BOMs, linking function to software and board IDs
- Delivery defines traceability granularity, record scope, leftovers, and later change-notification contacts
Initial RFQs can describe application, critical parts, and shortages, with complete BOMs/approval rules before formal procurement. Do not invent unapproved substitutes merely to complete quotations. For assembly inputs, review the material and manufacturing requirements. See related checks for Inspection and Recording Scope.
Anti-counterfeit procurement supplementary questions
Can scanning the QR code prove it is genuine factory product
Scanning helps check label information, but labels can be copied. Combine manufacturer verification mechanisms and purchasing chains; any scannable code is not an identity guarantee.
Whether older date codes are necessarily counterfeit
No. Check source, packaging, storage, solderability, and usable condition. New date codes alone do not guarantee authenticity; dates are one traceability field.
How to select samples and interpret further identification results
Before examination, define suspicions, methods, sample sources, and conclusion boundaries. Random samples assess certain lot characteristics; abnormal-looking samples investigate that abnormality, with different statistical meanings. Define destructive consumption in advance and retain untouched samples/packaging to prevent disputes over lot identity. Distinguish confirmed authenticity, no anomalies found, and insufficient evidence in manufacturer/third-party opinions; the latter two are not absolute guarantees. Unlinked supplier reports are background only. Disposition should map to purchasing entities, lots, usage, and limitations, with records retained after closure. Removing assembled components changes their condition; first preserve board IDs, reference designators, and functional behavior, and consider unassembled controls. Removal-induced appearance changes are not original incoming features.
Source material and applicable scope
- Texas Instruments, “Anti-counterfeit”; webpage version not identified; checked 2026-10-17; sections: authorized sources, counterfeit markings, and channel support. Supports TI sourcing-risk management, not other brands' authorization or specific-lot authenticity conclusions.
Decide what evidence is enough to release a component lot
Record the full manufacturer part number and the actual seller's authorization for that manufacturer's products at the time of purchase. Match the purchase order, invoice or packing record, package labels and received quantity to a traceable lot. The authorization of a similarly named company, or a QR code that scans, is not proof about this shipment.
When a lot comes from an unapproved channel or has inconsistent markings, quarantine it before kitting. Capture the original packaging and paperwork, determine which boards or work orders could be affected, and choose additional inspection or manufacturer support according to risk. A functional pass on a sample cannot authenticate all remaining parts. If the evidence remains inadequate, do not relabel the lot as verified; obtain an approved disposition and record the limitation.
Texas Instruments' public anti-counterfeit guidance supports the authorized-source principle for TI parts. Apply each other manufacturer's current channel and authentication rules to its own parts, not TI's rules by analogy.
Sourcing handoff: identify critical lots
Name the full part numbers, approved channel requirement and traceability depth for the build. Send exceptions through the sourcing scope and project inquiry before kitting.
