Research Data Note
Direct answer: A defensible landed-cost comparison fixes the product and transaction, then assigns an evidence owner to supplier price, freight, insurance, customs treatment, brokerage, domestic logistics, inventory, quality, and schedule inputs. Public sources can frame classification and dated policy; they cannot supply a universal freight rate, country premium, or transaction total. An unevidenced input stays blank—not zero.
Data notes
Publisher
Cyrionix
Decision scope
PCB and PCBA sourcing transactions
Primary evidence context
Official tariff instruments plus buyer, supplier, broker, carrier, quality, and program records
Method
Separate publicly observable context from quote- and buyer-specific inputs
Metric
No universal total is published
Calculation rule
Use aligned transaction inputs; unknown remains blank
Evidence cutoff
August 18, 2026 for public policy context
Parent research
North American PCB & PCBA Sourcing in 2026
Landed-cost evidence framework
| Cost component | Publicly observable? | Transaction-specific? | Required input and missing-input rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product / HTS classification | HTS and classification records provide context | Yes | Approved description, function, construction, mounted-component status, and code. Keep unresolved; do not infer from supplier wording alone. |
| Country of origin | Tariff scenarios provide context only | Yes | Origin analysis and substantiating records. Do not substitute supplier location. |
| Entry date | Dated policy instruments | Yes | Expected entry or withdrawal date. Revalidate before entry. |
| Customs value | No public source replaces records | Yes | Approved value basis and currency. Keep blank if unresolved. |
| Supplier price | Broad indexes are context only | Yes | Specification-, quantity-, test-, and term-matched quote. Keep blank without a comparable quote. |
| International freight | No universal PCB freight series admitted | Yes | Route, mode, service, weight/volume, surcharge, and Incoterm-matched quote. USER-SUPPLIED / QUOTE-SPECIFIC. |
| Insurance | No universal default | Yes | Policy or shipment-term cost. Blank if not evidenced or not applicable. |
| Base duty | USITC HTS | Yes | Rate for the approved code and origin. Validate for entry. |
| Additional duties | Official legal instruments | Yes | Each program and Chapter 99 provision. Test separately; add only if cumulative. |
| Exclusion / exemption | Official program sources | Yes | Exact legal text plus product and qualification records. Do not assume eligibility. |
| Broker / customs costs | No universal default | Yes | Broker schedule or transaction invoice. Keep blank without evidence. |
| Domestic logistics | No universal default | Yes | Route- and service-matched quote. Keep blank without evidence. |
| Inventory exposure | Public rates do not set buyer policy | Yes | Value, days, and buyer-approved carrying-cost method. Keep explicit and unpriced if the method is absent. |
| Quality / rework exposure | Industry surveys do not substitute | Yes | Product- and supplier-specific defect, yield, rework, and disposition records. Do not apply a country factor. |
| Schedule exposure | Sector indicators provide context only | Yes | Explicit probability, consequence, and time horizon. Do not assign an arbitrary premium. |
Why supplier unit price is not enough
A supplier price can be comparable only when specification, quantity, test scope, tooling, commercial terms, validity period, and included services match. Two quotations that use different Incoterms, component ownership, test coverage, or delivery points do not describe the same economic object. Adding a generic freight or tariff percentage after the fact does not repair that mismatch.
Public evidence is strongest where a published rule or classification exists. The USITC schedule can identify a base rate for an approved code, and dated legal instruments can identify possible additional-duty programs. Even there, the transaction must supply product classification, origin, entry date, customs value, and qualification records. Public data cannot establish those facts for an individual shipment.
Other inputs are inherently commercial. A carrier or forwarder owns a route- and mode-specific freight quote. The buyer and supplier own the scope and price of the quotation. Finance owns the approved inventory method. Quality records own defect, yield, and rework evidence. Program and operations records own schedule consequences. Replacing those records with a country average creates apparent precision without transaction evidence.
A defensible comparison sequence
- Freeze the compared specification. Align fabrication files, assembly revision, BOM, quantity, test, acceptance, packaging, and delivery requirement.
- Normalize commercial scope. Record what each quote includes, the named place and Incoterm version, who owns material and freight, and who acts as importer of record.
- Resolve customs facts. Establish classification, origin, expected entry date, customs-value basis, additional-duty programs, and documentary eligibility. Treat every tariff result as dated research context until validated for the entry.
- Collect transaction quotes. Obtain route-, mode-, service-, weight/volume-, and timing-matched logistics inputs rather than a universal freight assumption.
- Define buyer methods. Use an approved approach for inventory, quality/rework, and schedule exposure. If no method or evidence exists, show the field as unresolved.
- Record owner, date, and confidence. A reusable model should reveal who supplied each value, when it was valid, and what must be rechecked before a decision or entry.
Public context versus decision evidence
Trade statistics can show the value and origin mix of a controlled customs basket. Manufacturing data can show employment, establishments, and structural output for a defined industry. Tariff instruments can show conditional treatment for stated classifications and dates. None of those public layers reveals a supplier’s current price, route, yield, on-time delivery, available capacity, or promised lead time.
Supplier-performance claims require dated RFQs, quotations, allocation terms, audit results, inspection and test records, corrective actions, and delivery history. Industry surveys may identify a reason to revalidate a BOM or schedule, but they do not become supplier commitments. The same rule applies to country comparisons: country-level data cannot prove that a particular supplier is faster, cheaper, or more reliable.
Limitations and guardrails
This page is a methodology, not a calculator. It publishes no freight rate, quality percentage, inventory premium, country cost factor, China-versus-U.S. savings figure, or universal assembly-price difference.
Unknown is not zero. A blank field means “not yet evidenced.” It should remain visible in the decision record and be assigned to an owner rather than silently set to zero.
Tariff scenarios are not customs advice. Classification, origin, entry date, customs value, exact product facts, and documentation control actual treatment. Revalidate before entry.
Methodology
Cyrionix organized the variables admitted in the parent research by evidence availability and ownership. Publicly observable fields are limited to official classification, policy, and broad context. Quote-specific and buyer-specific fields remain outside the public dataset and are not populated with arbitrary percentages. The framework is an inferred decision method: it tells a team what evidence to obtain and what not to infer, but it does not calculate a sourcing winner.
This scope separates the note from the existing U.S. PCBA Landed Cost Guide. That resource remains the practical worksheet for comparing supplier quotes and delivered-cost lines. This research note owns the evidence architecture, missing-input rule, and validation sequence.
Primary context sources
- U.S. International Trade Commission, Harmonized Tariff Schedule archive and the 2026 Revision 16 CSV.
- Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and Federal Register materials governing the dated additional-duty scenarios described in the related tariff note.
- Transaction evidence identified in the framework: approved engineering description, importer/broker records, supplier quotations, carrier/forwarder quotes, finance methods, quality records, and program records.