For producers, distributors, and engineers

Put a candidate on the table.

Start with the incumbent, name the part that could replace or serve the same function, and show the specifications and public evidence behind that declaration. You do not need to wait for a requester to open a case.

Before you sign in

What the form asks for.

Every field below is the real one. Nothing here submits — this is the ask, shown so you can decide whether you have the evidence to hand before creating an account.

The relationship you are declaring

Incumbent part numberIncumbent manufacturer

Your candidate part numberCandidate manufacturer

What you are declaring

Scope, limits and differencesCompatibility scope — what it is declared to do, and whereExplicit exclusions — where it must not be usedKnown differences from the incumbentValidation the customer still has to do

Public source document

A producer’s own datasheet can document its candidate, but it does not independently prove a cross against another manufacturer. The reviewer will classify that distinction.

URL

TitleWhere in it — page, table, row

A structured technical comparison — current rating, wire range, sealing, plating, mating interface, tooling, temperature, approvals — follows these. Any check you leave blank stays published as unknown, never as a match.

Illustration only — not a real declaration

What a usable answer looks like.

A fabricated example, written to show the level of specificity a reviewer can act on. It names the range it covers, the range it does not, and the work it leaves to the reader.

1-2141857-1 declared against 1-968880-1

Compatibility scope: Direct successor for all 0.5–1.0 mm² applications in the AMP MCP 2.8 family; same cavity, retention geometry and mating interface.
Explicit exclusions: Not qualified for the +150 °C variant, and not assessed for unsealed housings.
Known differences from the incumbent: Crimp-area plating changes from gold flash to tin. Insertion force rises roughly 8% at the nominal wire size.
Validation the customer still has to do: Re-run crimp pull-off and micrograph on your own applicator, and re-check insertion force against your assembly limit, before release.

“Compatible” on its own is not a declaration. Exclusions are not required, but a claim that names where it does not apply is far easier for a reviewer to act on than one that admits no limit at all.

Private on receipt

The submission is visible only to you and reviewers until identity and sources pass listing.

Attribution stays attached

A listed claim names its declarant, employer, role, and verified stake.

Review is separate

Only an independent review path can turn a declaration into a published relationship.