Direct answer: how deep should the incoming check be?
Set the inspection depth from the component’s product impact, supply route, known defects, handling sensitivity and the buyer’s acceptance requirements. Start with identity and condition checks for every receipt under the agreed plan. Add documentation review, sample inspection or specialized testing when a specific risk calls for it. Hold any affected quantity until the required owner has dispositioned a mismatch. A risk-based plan should say which parts need more evidence; it should not claim that one visual check can prove every shipment genuine.
This guide focuses on inspection methods and the record behind an accept, hold or reject decision. The component receiving and kit-release checklist covers the next step: how accepted stock, shortages and reservations determine whether a work order can start. The component sourcing service describes the upstream purchasing scope.
Identify the risk before choosing an inspection method
Use the released BOM and approved manufacturer part number as the comparison baseline. Source evidence matters as much as the physical label. Texas Instruments warns that counterfeit devices can carry markings and labels resembling genuine products and recommends authorized sources for its semiconductors. That manufacturer’s policy supports asking for channel evidence; it does not establish the authenticity of another brand or of a particular Keep Best receipt.
| Risk signal | Checks to agree | Decision boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Approved channel, stable part and clean history | Part and label identity, quantity, packaging condition and the agreed routine sample | Accept only against the released BOM and receiving plan |
| Critical interface or failure-sensitive part | Drawing or datasheet attributes, package/variant, relevant dimensions or functional sample where specified | Inspection depth follows product risk and stated acceptance criteria |
| New source, broker route or weak chain of custody | Source documents, manufacturer or authorized-channel confirmation, and a defined escalation/testing plan | Keep material on hold until the product owner approves a supported route |
| Damaged, opened or moisture-sensitive packaging | Seal, label, humidity indicator or exposure information and supplier handling instructions | Do not infer usable floor life from appearance alone |
| Mixed lots, date codes or unexpected substitutions | Lot/quantity reconciliation and comparison with the approved traceability or alternate rule | Separate affected quantities until the owner decides whether they may be used |
These are review routes, not universal sampling rates. A low-risk receipt may still fail a basic identity check, while a high-risk part may require tests that a normal incoming station cannot perform. Put that limitation in the plan rather than implying the inspection is exhaustive.
Keep source, identity and packaging evidence together
At receipt, capture the purchase or consignment reference, source, manufacturer part number, supplier and manufacturer labels, packaging identity, quantity, lot or date information where required, condition and receiving location. Reconcile each field to the approved BOM and the shipment documents. If the project requires chain-of-custody evidence, ask the purchaser to supply it before release. A stock code in an ERP system does not replace the evidence behind a disputed source.
For moisture-sensitive devices, follow the part supplier’s classification, label and handling instructions. The IPC/JEDEC J-STD-033D public preview concerns handling, packing, shipping and use of classified moisture/reflow-sensitive devices. This page does not assign a universal floor-life or bake cycle to an unidentified part. ESD-sensitive material likewise needs the project-defined handling route; the presence of an ESD symbol alone is not evidence that every handling step was controlled.
Retain photographs only when they answer a specific question: damaged bag, conflicting label, marking concern or measured feature. A picture without the receipt ID, lot and decision can be hard to use later. The inspection record should identify who checked the item, the method, the result and the quantity affected.
Separate visible defects from authenticity and functional claims
Visual inspection can identify a damaged reel, bent lead, wrong package, inconsistent label or obvious marking anomaly. It cannot on its own authenticate every integrated circuit or show that a programmed part works under the product’s electrical conditions. If source uncertainty remains, agree a specialist inspection or test route with its limits, sample plan and approval owner. Do not silently replace an approved part with a lookalike part because the package fits.
Use manufacturer and authorized-distributor records to reduce the uncertainty before receipt. If a broker route is proposed, document why it is needed, which parts and quantities it covers, what chain of custody is available, which tests are feasible and who accepts residual risk. The decision must be product-specific; a supplier’s general “anti-counterfeit” statement does not prove this lot.
Record the disposition so the build does not lose the finding
Give accepted, held and rejected quantities distinct statuses. Link a nonconformance to the exact receipt, BOM line, lot, location and proposed work order. A hold should identify the next action and a named decision owner. An approved deviation needs scope: which units or build it covers, any additional checks, and when the permission expires.
| Record field | What it answers | Example decision |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt and material identity | Which delivered quantity and approved BOM line were checked? | Match or hold for identity clarification |
| Method and criteria | Which label, dimension, document or test was compared with which requirement? | Accept within stated scope or request a deeper method |
| Result and affected quantity | How many items passed, failed or remain unexamined? | Release accepted stock only; segregate the rest |
| Exception and owner | Who may approve substitution, added test, return, rework or scrap? | Hold until written disposition |
| Link to build record | Which lot or work order may consume the accepted quantity? | Transfer an authorized balance into kit release |
The IPC-1782 public preview frames electronics traceability around agreed risk and user/supplier requirements. It does not mean every project requires unit-level component history. Agree whether a record is at receipt, lot, reel, board or unit level; use that same level when explaining what an inspection result can trace.
Questions for the RFQ and incoming inspection plan
- Which BOM lines need routine identity checks, enhanced inspection or independent test, and why?
- Who supplies source documents and who approves a route outside the authorized channel?
- What packaging, MSL or ESD evidence is required for sensitive parts?
- How will a failed sample affect the rest of the lot, and who decides the next action?
- Which records must follow the accepted material into the pilot or repeat build?
Include these open questions with the current BOM, known supplier routes and expected build stage in the project RFQ. Confidential files can follow the agreed NDA process. The quality overview explains how incoming decisions connect to assembly, testing and shipment evidence.
Source and scope notes
The external sources linked above support general supplier-channel, moisture-handling and traceability decisions. They do not certify Keep Best, validate a specific shipment or replace a project-approved inspection plan. Acceptance criteria, sample size, specialist tests, record retention and final disposition must be agreed for the part and product at hand.