Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1527276
20 SMT007 MAGAZINE I OCTOBER 2024 Given this example, the first question that came to us is, "What is the risk?" We ultimately built test boards using these components and ran the AECQ 200 tests to confirm that the parts wouldn't fail. With a thousand capacitors in parallel, that's a lot of charge. We took the necessary safety precau- tions and were able to successfully complete the tests. What we learned was that the parts met the specifications, so there was no risk. You can imagine the financial investment required to do this type of activity. The story arc you shared starts simply but becomes quite sophisticated. It's important to understand the number of resources we had at our disposal, including technical personnel and analysis equipment. However, if the organization doesn't commu- nicate across departments, these resources can't help protect the organization. In your first example, you had a part that functionally passed the tests and looked legitimate until it was essentially in the field, and then it didn't work as expected. That's a pretty sophisticated situation. How do you catch those? It sounds like you did so by cross-referencing manufacturer lot codes with the manufacturer's records. We did. e first time you talk to them, most manufacturers say, "We will not confirm any- thing. If it didn't come through our supply chain of custody, we have no comment." I com- pletely understand the manufacturers' stance, given the legal ramifications. What we ulti- mately learned is that we needed to involve the right supply chain personnel that could share the history of forecasts, communica- tions, and escalations on a particular part. We still had to go to the broker market to meet the requirements. Based on these facts, manufacturers typically would provide enough information for us to make informed decisions. Don't manufacturers have a vested interest in determining whether these parts are fakes? what with people peddling parts under their brand and all? Given the prevalence and sophistication of the counterfeit industry, the risk to component manufacturers is very high. Manufacturers need to protect themselves, and I understand their liability concerns. In your example of having 10 million in overage and surreptitiously feeding them back into the supply chain, these were legit- imate parts that could have been placed in the original order. The only difference is they're no longer in the chain of custody. Yeah, these are counterfeit because the label in the chain of custody is fake. Two big organi- zations cover counterfeit parts. One is GIDEP, a defense aerospace clearinghouse for log- ging counterfeit and at-risk parts. e other is smaller but very powerful: ERAI. " Given the prevalence and sophistication of the counterfeit industry, the risk to component manufacturers is very high. "