Evolving Standards in Semiconductor Traceability
While rooted in historical necessity, date codes are being rendered antiquated by modern practices and standards.
19 Mar, 2025. 5 minutes read
Semiconductor traceability has changed dramatically over the past few decades. Initially implemented as a basic quality control measure, traceability has since evolved into a tool for guaranteeing component authenticity, mitigating counterfeit risks, and maintaining compliance with industry regulations. However, while technology has advanced, many traceability practices, such as the widely accepted “two-year date code” rule, remain outdated and misaligned with modern semiconductor storage capabilities.
Historically, traceability concerns were centered on the variability of manufacturing processes and material stability. Early semiconductors were produced under inconsistent conditions, making component aging a legitimate concern. Today, semiconductor fabrication has matured, with improved materials, tighter process controls, and robust storage standards that preserve component reliability well beyond the industry’s arbitrary time constraints. Despite these advancements, legacy limitations persist, restricting component usability and introducing inefficiencies that impact supply chain resilience.
Read on to learn about the origins of semiconductor traceability, the evolution of standards, and how modern approaches, led by organizations like JEDEC and ECIA, are redefining best practices to align with today’s technological realities.
Origins of Traceability
The semiconductor industry’s early reliance on date codes stemmed from the technical limitations of the 20th century. In the 1980s and 1990s, manufacturing processes were less refined, and concerns over component degradation were justified due to material instability. For example, early plastic mold compounds exhibited high moisture absorption that led to delamination during solder reflow. Similarly, pure tin finishes, commonly used in early electronic packaging, were prone to tin whisker growth, which could cause electrical shorts in mission-critical applications [1].
These concerns led manufacturers and distributors to adopt a two-year date code rule, which limited component usability beyond this threshold. The rationale was simple: older components were assumed to have a higher risk of failure due to material aging. However, as materials science advanced, so did the resilience of semiconductors. Modern epoxy mold compounds now offer significantly improved moisture resistance, reducing delamination risks. Likewise, advances in surface finishes, including the introduction of nickel-palladium-gold (NiPdAu) plating, have largely mitigated tin whisker formation[2].
Despite these improvements, the semiconductor supply chain continues to enforce legacy constraints, often discarding perfectly functional components based on date codes rather than storage conditions. This practice increases electronic waste, and strains supply chains during times of component shortages. Manufacturers, contract assemblers, and distributors must recognize that storage conditions, not arbitrary date codes, determine long-term component viability.
Modern Traceability Standards
To address the limitations of legacy traceability practices, industry organizations have introduced more rigorous standards that emphasize environmental controls and documentation over arbitrary aging limits. Among the most influential are JEDEC JEP160 and SAE AS6496.
JEDEC JEP160
JEDEC JEP160 provides detailed guidelines for long-term semiconductor storage by specifying parameters such as temperature, humidity, and packaging requirements. By maintaining controlled storage environments, such as limiting relative humidity to below 10% and keeping temperatures within defined thresholds, JEP160 ensures that components remain viable for extended periods.
One of the most important contributions of JEP160 is its emphasis on moisture-sensitive devices (MSDs). Components categorized under JEDEC’s moisture sensitivity levels (MSL) require strict adherence to storage conditions to prevent oxidation and solderability issues. Unlike the outdated two-year rule, JEP160 recognizes that properly stored components remain functionally equivalent to newly manufactured parts.
SAE AS6496
While JEP160 focuses on storage practices, SAE AS6496 addresses component authenticity and supply chain security. This standard mandates that authorized distributors maintain full chain-of-custody records, such that components remain within a secure, traceable ecosystem from manufacture to end use.
By enforcing AS6496, authorized distributors like Rochester Electronics eliminate gray-market risks associated with returns, overstock buy-backs, and unauthorized reselling. This commitment to an unbroken chain of custody ensures that customers receive genuine, high-quality components with full traceability documentation. Unlike independent brokers, which may lack rigorous authentication procedures, Rochester Electronics exclusively deals in manufacturer-authorized inventory to reduce counterfeit exposure and reinforce supply chain integrity.
Date Codes: An Antiquated Practice?
Despite advances in traceability standards, many manufacturers and contract assemblers continue to use date codes as a primary determinant of component reliability. While date codes serve an important role in tracking production lots and managing recalls, they are often misapplied as a de facto expiration date.
The primary issue with the two-year date code rule is that it does not account for storage conditions. Components stored in uncontrolled environments, such as warehouses with high humidity, may degrade within months, while those kept in JEDEC-compliant storage remain viable for decades.
Modern traceability frameworks now integrate advanced identifiers, including lot numbers, serial numbers, and barcodes, that allow manufacturers to track individual components throughout their lifecycle with more granular insights into environmental exposure, storage history, and manufacturing conditions. The adoption of such data-rich tracking mechanisms further undermines the industry’s reliance on simple date codes as a proxy for reliability.
Counterfeit Prevention and Traceability
Beyond reliability concerns, semiconductor traceability prevents counterfeit infiltration. Counterfeit components present significant risks in industries where failure is unacceptable, such as aerospace, defense, and medical devices. Without robust traceability measures, unauthorized parts can enter the supply chain and cause safety hazards and financial losses.
To combat counterfeiting, industry standards like AS6496 and AS5553 mandate comprehensive documentation and verification protocols. Rochester Electronics adheres strictly to AS6496 so that all inventory remains within the authorized supply chain. By maintaining full traceability records, Rochester provides customers with verifiable proof of authenticity and eliminates concerns associated with gray-market sourcing.
The Future of Semiconductor Traceability
The semiconductor industry’s reliance on outdated traceability practices, such as the two-year date code rule, no longer aligns with modern manufacturing, storage, and authentication capabilities. Advances in materials science, storage standards like JEDEC JEP160, and supply chain security measures like AS6496 have rendered time-based constraints obsolete. Yet, overcoming industry inertia remains a challenge.
Moving forward, manufacturers, distributors, and contract assemblers must shift from arbitrary date code enforcement to a more sophisticated, data-driven approach to traceability. By leveraging environmental monitoring, advanced serialization, and secure authentication frameworks, the industry can ensure component reliability while reducing waste and inefficiency.
Rochester Electronics is a leader in this evolution. By offering fully traceable, authorized-only inventory that meets the highest industry standards, Rochester customers have access to components with full documentation, secure handling, and long-term storage compliance.
In the next article in this series, we will disprove some of the common myths surrounding the efficacy of date codes.