Choosing an RFID Distributor: Support, Substitutions, and Lifecycle
Working record | Updated October 3, 2026
Guide: https://yenra.com/rfid-distributor/

Purpose: Compare distributors by documented authorization, technical support, regional products, substitution control and replacement service.

Instructions
1. Save a separate copy for each site, job or configuration. Use test aliases where records concern people or payments.
2. Fill each field with a result and its evidence reference. Mark unknown items UNRESOLVED; do not infer a pass.
3. Record the configuration, document revision and date behind each result. Keep credentials and sensitive records in approved systems rather than this worksheet.
4. Assign unresolved items an owner and next action. Sign off only within the scope actually verified.
5. Recheck affected fields after the configuration, supplier or requirements change.

Evaluation name: 
Date and reviewer: 
Scope and intended decision: 

1. Distributor and manufacturer authorization evidence/date: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

2. Exact regional parts list and approved deviations: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

3. Traceability and condition on delivery: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

4. Configuration/commissioning responsibility: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

5. Software/license and integration support owner: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

6. Support hours/contact/escalation: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

7. Warranty versus service contract terms: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

8. Return shipping/repair/replacement process: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

9. Spare stock decision: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

10. Substitution approval and lifecycle notification: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

11. Acceptance results and unresolved items: 
   Evidence/reference and result: 

Illustrative example from the guide (fictional, not a test result)
Invented quote comparison, not current pricing Two fictional distributors quote the same reader and antenna. Proposal A includes regional configuration confirmation, an acceptance session and a documented replacement arrangement. Proposal B has a lower line-item total but leaves those services unspecified. The buyer asks B to price or explicitly exclude the missing work, then compares complete responsibilities and operational consequences. A becomes preferable only if the evidence and agreed needs justify it; the example provides no vendor ranking.

Decision: ACCEPT / REVISE / HOLD
Decision scope and rationale: 
Unresolved item / owner / next action / due date: 
Approved by and date: 
Change that requires review: 

Primary references (verify applicable revision and scope)
https://www.zebra.com/us/en/partners/partner-application-locator.html
https://www.zebra.com/us/en/partners/which-partner-is-right.html
https://www.ti.com/quality-reliability/quality/anti-counterfeit.html
https://www.zebra.com/us/en/support-downloads/warranty/product-warranty.html