A date marking interpreted with the wrong rule can put a false age claim into a receiving record. Preserve the observed code, find the applicable manufacturer rule and link the interpretation to the batch documents without treating the date as proof of origin or acceptance.

This guide is for procurement and receiving staff using the sourcing evidence route. Its output is a source-linked batch record, rather than a universal decoder, shelf-life rule or authenticity judgment.

Macro of black quad flat IC packages sitting in a component tray.
Example of quad flat IC packages in a component tray; not device validation or a field record.
Input or item Typical value or source Why it matters
Observed marking Original package or label observation Keeps the raw evidence separate from interpretation
Applicable rule Manufacturer document for the actual item Establishes what the code means
Receiving batch Organization’s receiving reference Connects physical observations to records
Origin documents Purchase and supplier documentation Records provenance separately
Acceptance requirement Actual purchase or quality requirement Keeps a date interpretation from becoming an approval

Find the rule before interpreting the code

A date code is a marking interpreted under a stated rule. Character count or a familiar-looking year and week pattern does not establish that rule for an unknown component.

ECIA’s EIA Weekly Date Codes page describes a program for marking the year and week of production and provides year-specific tables. That supports the existence and scope of the association’s program. It does not show that every component manufacturer or every package uses it. Use the applicable table only after confirming the actual marking convention.

TI’s part-marking lookup is a manufacturer-specific way to connect top markings with product information. It is not a generic calendar decoder. For uncertain device identity, start with the ordering-code and marking record before interpreting any string as a date.

Common mistake: Seeing a familiar-looking string and writing a calendar date before establishing the manufacturer and marking rule.

Takeaway: A supported date interpretation starts with an applicable rule and the unedited observation.

Keep date, batch and origin in separate fields

Use this editorial worksheet to record the date interpretation as one field within a larger receiving record; it is not an ECIA or TI prescribed form. Keep batch identifiers and purchase-origin documents separately attributable.

In this checklist, provenance means the documented association between the received material and its source records. A receiving batch is the organization’s reference for the material being recorded. Neither term implies that the components have been authenticated or accepted. Those decisions require the actual organization’s process and evidence.

A hand holding a sealed silver moisture-barrier bag with a blank label next to an open cardboard box.
Example of a sealed moisture-barrier bag with a blank label beside a shipping box; not device validation or a field record.
Field Record Source / unresolved item
Receiving reference Internal batch or receipt identifier Existing receiving record
Full part identity Manufacturer and complete ordering code Purchase and manufacturer documentation
Observed device marking Exact visible text, with uncertainty preserved Observation reference
Observed label fields Label identifiers as printed Original package-label record
Declared lot or batch Identifier exactly as stated and its declaring party, if present Separate from the internal receiving reference
Batch association Label/lot to receipt relationship and covered material Document location and confirmed-or-unresolved link
Marking location Actual package and where the code was observed Observation reference
Applicable date rule Rule title, scope and version Manufacturer or applicable association source
Rule applicability Evidence for this model, package and marking position Unresolved until the applicable source establishes it
Table and precision Year-specific table only if actually used; production-period precision supported Do not turn year/week into an unsupported calendar day
Record owner Person recording and reviewing the interpretation Separate from the source-document issuer
Interpreted date Interpretation supported by that rule Source location; unresolved if rule unknown
Source linkage Which document relates to which received material Purchase/supplier document reference
Open issue Specific missing or conflicting evidence Named owner and next document needed

Record separate label/lot relationships when one receiving reference covers several source batches. Preserve the document that supports each association; a recorded association is a relationship to check, not evidence that it is confirmed.

The table can be copied into a receiving worksheet without assuming a particular code format. Leave a missing date rule unresolved. Do not use a blank interpretation to mean zero age, new stock or acceptable material.

Follow component documentation for the identity and package record. Follow purchase evidence for the source linkage. Keeping those tasks separate makes it possible to resolve one uncertainty without silently claiming the others are settled.

Takeaway: Link the documents to the received batch while preserving the independence of each evidence field.

Explain what the record does and does not establish

A documented interpretation establishes what the applicable rule says about a marking. It does not by itself establish storage history, remaining life or authenticity.

This article defines no acceptance age, storage condition or shelf-life period. Storage evidence, opened-bag floor life, and a buyer’s acceptance ages are separated in the IC shelf-life guide. If the actual purchase specification contains a date-related requirement, cite that requirement separately and assign its interpretation to the responsible reviewer. Do not derive an acceptance limit from the date-code format itself.

What the evidence supports What remains a separate question
A source explains the observed code under a stated rule Whether that rule applies to this exact item
A document names a batch or source reference Whether the received material is linked to that document
An interpreted production period is recorded Storage history and the applicable acceptance requirement
A purchase record names the requested part Identity, origin and any engineering substitution review

If the purchase request concerns a different component, use the obsolete-part replacement review rather than making the date worksheet serve as a substitution approval. For installed equipment, the industrial records route preserves assembly context independently of a component’s marked date.

Takeaway: Keep the conclusion as narrow as the evidence: a date interpretation is one recorded fact, not an acceptance verdict.

Route missing or conflicting evidence to its owner

Turn each gap into a specific question with the needed document and an owner. Do not repair a conflict by choosing the code interpretation that best fits the order.

For an unknown format, ask the manufacturer’s documentation contact or the responsible procurement reviewer for the applicable rule. For a missing batch link, ask the source-document owner which record associates the offered material with the receipt. For conflicting purchase and label identifiers, preserve both records and ask the purchase owner to resolve the discrepancy.

Route the specific question to its required document and responsible owner while retaining the unresolved status.

A useful issue entry contains the exact conflicting fields, their source references, what remains unresolved and who can answer. It can remain open while another part of the receiving record is completed. Continue through sourcing review with that issue visible.

If an engineering requirement is implicated, retain the source’s stated conditions using the datasheet condition checklist rather than changing a requirement to match the material on hand.

Takeaway: A missing link remains a named question until the responsible source supplies evidence.

When this does not apply

This worksheet is unsuitable for proving authenticity, determining remaining life or approving a component for an unknown assembly. It also cannot reconstruct missing supply-chain records from a plausible date string.

Where a quality decision is needed, use the actual purchase requirements and authorized process. Keep the source-linked date entry available as part of that review, with its limitations intact.

Takeaway: Date recording supports the review but does not replace origin evidence or acceptance authority.

Methods and sources

This editorial record uses ECIA’s original EIA Weekly Date Codes page and TI’s original part-marking lookup, accessed October 8, 2026. The association page supports its program’s stated year/week purpose; the manufacturer lookup supports its own marking-search scope. We do not claim to have decoded an actual received batch, inspected components or applied a universal date convention.