Executive answer
Resolve three questions before naming an IPC document
- IPC-2223F addresses flexible-board design, while IPC-6013F addresses qualification and performance; one reference cannot silently substitute for the other.
- Confirm the actual circuit platform before citing either document because “membrane switch” describes the interface assembly, not one universal circuit construction.
- Make every standards reference quotable by recording the revision, applicable project selections, deviations, specimen, method, acceptance criteria and evidence owner.
Current guidance context
Two current documents, two different procurement questions
The Global Electronics Association’s current status page lists IPC-2223F, Sectional Design Standard for Flexible/Rigid-Flexible Printed Boards, as published in May 2026 and IPC-6013F, Qualification and Performance Specification for Flexible/Rigid-Flexible Printed Boards, as published in June 2026. The publication timing makes the revision letters worth checking in any new RFQ, but the titles are more important than their proximity: one is a design document and the other is a qualification and performance document.
A useful RFQ therefore does not ask whether an FPC membrane switch is simply “IPC compliant.” It identifies the circuit platform, assigns each standard to a defined deliverable and states the evidence the buyer expects. That record prevents a design citation, a fabrication claim and a finished-interface approval from being treated as the same promise.
Confirm the circuit platform before citing a board standard
An FPC membrane switch normally refers to a user interface integrated with a flexible printed board, commonly a copper circuit on polyimide. A conventional membrane switch may instead use screen-printed conductive ink on polyester. Both can route key contacts to an equipment controller, but their materials, fabrication data and evidence paths are not interchangeable.
Start the RFQ with a circuit-platform declaration. Name the substrate and conductor system, the intended layer construction and the boundary between the fabricated circuit and the overlay, spacer, adhesive, domes, LEDs, connector and other assembled parts. If the supplier is expected to propose the platform, require the proposal to identify it explicitly and explain which standards references apply to that proposed construction.
Do not let a product-family name become a conformity claim. The presence of an FPC-style tail, a fine-pitch connector or a flexible shape does not by itself prove that a circuit was designed, qualified or accepted to a named IPC document. The released fabrication package and agreed records must carry that meaning.
Assign IPC-2223F to the design basis
IPC-2223F is identified by the standards body as the sectional design standard for flexible and rigid-flexible printed boards. In an RFQ, that makes it a candidate reference for the controlled design basis when the actual circuit platform and contract make it applicable. The Global Electronics Association’s design-suite page also places IPC-2223 within the family of printed-board design standards rather than presenting it as a finished-product certificate.
A design reference needs project inputs. Release the schematic or net list, outline and stack assumptions, supported and flexible regions, installed bend condition, conductor and pad interfaces, component and stiffener boundaries, tail geometry and connector definition. Record who owns each input and which drawing revision the supplier is quoting.
The citation should also expose open decisions. If a construction type, use condition or other project selection has not yet been agreed, mark it as open instead of allowing each supplier to choose silently. Obtain the current purchased standard and qualified engineering review for detailed requirements; a public title or this article is not a substitute for the document.
Assign IPC-6013F to qualification and performance evidence
IPC-6013F is listed as the qualification and performance specification for flexible and rigid-flexible printed boards. A buyer citing it should define what evidence is required for the project rather than assume that the document title creates a universal certificate. State the exact revision and the project-selected construction, classification or acceptance basis that the responsible parties determine from the purchased document.
Then identify the specimen and record. Separate any initial qualification evidence from lot or delivery acceptance, and name the characteristics, methods, sample basis and acceptance criteria required by the contract. Ask the fabricator or assembly supplier to identify exclusions, deviations and subcontracted evidence before price comparison, not after a sample is built.
Keep evidence attached to the product state it represents. A fabricated flexible-board record does not automatically approve mounted domes, printed overlay alignment, LEDs, adhesive bonding, connector mating or the behavior of the completed equipment. Those interfaces need their own controlled observations.
Build a document-role matrix that suppliers can quote
Put the standards schedule beside the drawing list. For each cited document, record the revision, the deliverable it controls, any buyer-selected class or type, approved deviations, evidence format and owner. This turns a broad compliance phrase into fields that can be confirmed, priced or challenged.
The matrix below is an original editorial worksheet, not a reproduction of either IPC document. Complete it with the current purchased standards and the actual contract. If a row is outside the supplier’s scope, identify the organization that retains it rather than leaving the evidence owner blank.
Use the same matrix during quotation review. Two prices are not comparable when one includes fabricated-board documentation and the other assumes customer acceptance from a functional sample alone. A declared evidence gap is a decision; an invisible gap becomes a dispute.
Separate board, membrane-switch and system approval
The fabricated FPC, the assembled membrane switch and the installed HMI are related but different evidence objects. Board fabrication records can address the controlled flexible-board state. Assembly checks can address component identity, circuit continuity, key operation, indicators, connector and visual workmanship within the agreed supply boundary. A mounted-interface review can address fit, tail routing, support, display alignment, access and interaction with the enclosure.
The equipment team still owns controller behavior, permitted states, electrical loading outside the supplied component, environmental exposure in the final machine and complete-product conformity. Record the exact sample, enclosure or fixture, drawing revision, method, result and approver for each review so evidence cannot be transferred to another configuration without analysis.
This separation also prevents overclaiming in supplier selection. A supplier may be able to quote an FPC construction and agreed records without claiming blanket certification of every membrane-switch assembly. Ask for the evidence that the project needs and evaluate it against the same controlled scope.
Release one FPC RFQ with explicit evidence ownership
Issue the same package to every candidate: circuit-platform declaration, schematic or net list, fabrication data, mechanical stack, bend and support map, tail and mating connector, component boundary, use environment, standards schedule, acceptance matrix, quantity basis and change-control expectations. Require each quotation to return assumptions and exclusions against those fields.
Before release, ask four questions. Is the circuit actually within the flexible or rigid-flexible printed-board scope being cited? Does the RFQ distinguish design requirements from qualification and performance evidence? Are the current revision and project selections controlled? Does every fabricated-board, assembled-component and mounted-system record have an owner? A “no” is a useful open item, not a reason to hide the uncertainty behind a general standards phrase.
For an HYR review, submit the current design package through the secure inquiry route and ask about the proposed circuit and supply boundary. HYR can review a project-specific FPC membrane-switch quotation; this page does not state that HYR or an unspecified product is certified to IPC-2223F or IPC-6013F.