How to verify solution references from semiconductor suppliers

A compelling case study is not always proof that a semiconductor solution will perform reliably in your application. For technical evaluators, verifying supplier and solution references for semiconductors means looking beyond claims to examine operating conditions, qualification data, traceability, and customer validation. This guide outlines practical checks to assess reference credibility, identify gaps in the evidence, and make better-informed decisions for power electronics, drive systems, and grid equipment.

The central question is not simply whether a device has been used before. It is whether the cited evidence covers a sufficiently similar device, operating environment, system design and service life. A reference that supports one of those points may be useful, but it should not quietly stand in for all of them.

Separate a supplier reference from a solution reference

A supplier reference describes the organization: its manufacturing arrangements, quality processes, delivery history or experience serving a market. A solution reference concerns a particular implementation, such as a power module used in a motor drive or a silicon carbide device evaluated in an inverter.

Both are relevant, but neither answers the whole question. A supplier with a credible history in industrial drives may still offer a new device with limited field exposure. Conversely, a technically strong reference design may depend on a distributor, foundry or assembly site whose continuity has not been assessed.

Start by asking the supplier to identify exactly what each reference demonstrates. Is it a laboratory prototype, a qualified production design or equipment that has accumulated operating time in the field? Was the semiconductor supplied directly by the company presenting the reference, and is it the same part and revision under consideration? A reference design can demonstrate feasibility without proving production reliability.

Match the reference to the electrical and thermal envelope

An application label such as “industrial inverter” is too broad to establish equivalence. A low-duty drive in a controlled enclosure and a continuously loaded converter in a hot cabinet may place very different stresses on the same power device.

Request the reference design’s operating envelope alongside the part number and circuit topology. Where relevant, compare these details with the proposed design:

• Electrical stress: DC-link voltage, transient overshoot, current profile, switching frequency and short-circuit conditions.
• Thermal conditions: cooling method, ambient range, estimated junction temperatures and temperature cycling during the actual duty profile.
• Implementation: gate-driver settings, protection thresholds, parasitic inductance, layout and packaging.
• Environment: humidity, contamination, vibration, altitude and enclosure conditions where these affect the equipment.
• Mission profile: operating hours, load variation, start-stop frequency and expected maintenance or replacement intervals.

The details matter especially when comparing silicon IGBTs with wide-bandgap devices. Faster switching can affect losses, electromagnetic interference, insulation stress and sensitivity to layout. A reference built around a different gate driver or bus structure may not transfer directly, even if the semiconductor’s headline voltage and current ratings appear suitable.

Ask for the assumptions behind any efficiency or temperature claim. Measurements at a favorable operating point are useful for understanding behavior, but they do not establish performance across the full load cycle. For a grid-connected converter, also examine abnormal grid conditions and the system’s protection response; normal-operation waveforms alone leave an important gap.

Read qualification evidence in context

A qualification summary is a starting point, not a substitute for a test plan. Ask which device family, package, process and manufacturing location the results cover. Confirm the test conditions, sample sizes, acceptance criteria and observed failures, as well as the report date and any changes since testing.

Device qualification and application validation answer different questions. Qualification tests can demonstrate that a device met specified criteria under defined stresses. They do not automatically prove that the assembled converter will survive its intended mission profile, cooling faults or installation environment. Likewise, an accelerated test result should not be converted into a field-life claim without a defensible model and relevant assumptions.

Standards can help structure the discussion, but their relevance depends on the device and application. For example, AEC-Q101 addresses stress-test qualification for discrete semiconductors in automotive applications. A claim of qualification to it should be checked against the actual part and supporting documentation; it does not by itself qualify a complete industrial drive or grid converter. Confirm the applicable edition and any customer-specific requirements rather than assuming a standard name resolves every risk.

Pay particular attention to gaps between the qualified configuration and the proposed supply. A change in die, package materials, assembly location or test flow may require review even when the commercial part number remains familiar. Ask what changed, whether requalification was performed and which evidence supports continued use.

Verify customer references without overstating what they prove

A named customer is more useful when the customer can confirm the scope of its experience. If an introduction is possible, ask whether the cited equipment reached production, which device or solution was used, and whether the application conditions resemble yours. Questions about engineering support, change notifications and failure analysis can be as revealing as questions about performance.

Confidentiality may prevent a supplier from sharing a customer’s name or detailed field data. That is not automatically a warning sign. Ask instead for an anonymized reference with a documented application profile, the stage of deployment, the evidence owner and the limitations of disclosure. If necessary, a non-disclosure agreement may allow a more detailed review.

Keep demonstration, shipment and field-operation claims separate. Units shipped are not the same as units operating under load; operating time is not necessarily representative of the most demanding duty cycle. Where failure-rate figures are offered, ask for the population, observation period, failure definition and method of collection. Without those details, a number can sound more conclusive than it is.

Trace the part from evidence to delivered material

A well-supported reference loses value if the delivered material cannot be connected to it. Establish how the supplier identifies the manufacturer, part number, revision, date or lot code, and relevant manufacturing or assembly sites. Confirm what documentation accompanies shipments and how long traceability records are retained.

The supply channel deserves the same scrutiny. Determine whether material will come directly from the manufacturer or through an authorized distributor, and how the channel handles storage, returns and suspect material. For long-life infrastructure equipment, also ask how end-of-life notices, last-time buys and replacement-part assessments are managed. A technically suitable component can become a project risk if its supply or change history is opaque.

Review the product change notification process before design approval. Which changes trigger notice? How much review time is normally provided? Can the customer obtain qualification data or samples before implementation? The answers should align with the project’s own validation and contractual requirements, not merely with a generic supplier policy.

Use discrepancies to plan validation, not just reject suppliers

Few references will match a new application perfectly. The practical task is to identify which differences are consequential and decide how to close them. A supplier may have strong device qualification but no comparable grid-equipment installation; another may offer an appropriate reference design but limited transparency about future manufacturing changes.

Record each claim beside its evidence, the configuration covered and the remaining gap. Then assign a disposition: acceptable as presented, acceptable after additional testing, or unresolved before selection. This makes comparisons more useful than a simple pass-or-fail score based on the number of references supplied.

For example, if the closest reference uses the same power module but a different cooling arrangement, the next step may be thermal modeling followed by measurements in the intended assembly. If the device has suitable electrical characteristics but the proposed protection scheme differs, test fault detection and turn-off behavior in the actual circuit. Define acceptance criteria in advance and agree who owns the test data and any corrective action.

Commercial and technical reviews should meet before the design is frozen. Lead time, minimum order quantities, engineering support and access to failure analysis can influence whether a solution remains viable after the prototype stage. A lower-risk selection is not necessarily the one with the longest reference list; it is the one whose critical assumptions are visible and can be verified.

Make the final decision against the project, not the presentation

Independent sector intelligence can help frame the questions. The Global Power & Electrical Grid Matrix (GPEGM), for example, examines developments in power electronics, drive systems and grid equipment, including the application of wide-bandgap semiconductors. That broader perspective can help evaluators identify relevant technology and supply-chain trends, but it does not replace part-specific qualification or testing in the intended equipment.

Before approving a supplier reference, confirm that the evidence follows the proposed part through its electrical design, thermal environment, manufacturing configuration and supply channel. Where it does not, make the missing validation an explicit project action with an owner and a decision deadline. The strongest reference is not the most polished one; it is the one that remains useful after its limits have been examined.