1. Define the Channel Timing Relationship
Start with what the channels represent together. An application may need observations associated with the same event, or it may permit separate observation times for different inputs. Those requirements can lead to different architecture questions even when the requested number of channels is identical. Ask the measurement owner to state the relationship that matters before reducing the request to a converter resolution and throughput entry.
Distinguish the number of accessible inputs from the relationship between their observations. A device can offer several input selections without that fact establishing simultaneous sampling. The procurement requirement should therefore identify whether channel observations must share a defined timing relationship, rather than relying on the phrase multi-channel. This keeps a real measurement decision visible when part descriptions are shortened for comparison.
Make the required relationship understandable in the application's own terms. For example, clarify whether the reviewer needs to compare channels as observations of one event or can assess them independently. The design owner must define any acceptance conditions. This guide gives no permissible timing offset and does not assume that an architecture label alone establishes phase performance across a complete measurement chain.
2. Distinguish Architecture Examples
TI describes ADS131M08 as a simultaneously-sampling ADC with differential inputs. That statement is a specific architecture example supporting the question about channel observation timing. Retain the exact device identity and the manufacturer's description together. The feature does not select an input connection for the customer, establish performance between separate converters or make every simultaneous-sampling product an interchangeable candidate.
The ADS1115 product description instead identifies an input multiplexer that permits different input measurements. An input-selection capability answers how the device can address those inputs; it should not be relabelled as simultaneous observation of all of them. Preserve this distinction without inventing the device's conversion sequence, switching schedule or latency. Those details require their own applicable documentation if they matter to the proposed use.
Use the pair as contrasting descriptions, rather than as a replacement recommendation. The sourcing question is which architecture the released measurement requirement calls for. Interface, input behavior and other operating conditions remain separate aspects of each exact candidate. A comparison that names only channel count can conceal the architecture distinction, while a comparison that names architecture alone can still omit essential application requirements.
3. Retain Timing Evidence Still Needed
Separate the sampling relationship from the later availability and transfer of conversion results. A channel-observation requirement concerns when the inputs are sampled relative to one another. A digital-interface description concerns another part of the process. Reading a collection of results through an interface does not, by that fact alone, establish whether the input observations were simultaneous or define their complete timing relationship.
For a candidate under review, identify which exact documentation addresses sampling, conversion and result transfer. Engineering can then compare those descriptions with the application's timing requirement. Do not derive a channel schedule or latency budget from a single maximum sample-rate label. Likewise, a simultaneous-sampling description should retain any further channel-to-channel timing questions that the application requires instead of being treated as a complete phase specification.
Keep system-level alignment questions distinct from an individual device's architecture. If the design coordinates multiple converters or combines their results with another measurement path, ask how that relationship is established in the released design. A product description for one ADC cannot demonstrate that coordination. Preserve the relevant clocking, timing and acceptance references for engineering without prescribing a synchronisation method or claiming that it has been evaluated.
4. Keep Front-End Review Separate
Architecture selection does not complete the analog input-chain review. The existing SAR acquisition guide addresses whether a defined source, driver and filter can meet an input-settling requirement. That is different from deciding how channel observations relate in time. Link the applicable front-end assessment to the chosen converter, while keeping the multi-channel timing decision explicit rather than merging the two questions into a general accuracy label.
A useful architecture decision states what relationship the application needs, which exact candidate description addresses it, and which timing evidence remains necessary. It should also identify whether an input-selection arrangement is acceptable for that requirement. This gives engineering a focused comparison: the reviewer can assess the proposed observation model before evaluating the remaining electrical and interface conditions of the candidate.
Preserve the accepted architecture requirement when the sourcing request is passed between engineering and purchasing. If a proposed alternative changes simultaneous sampling into input selection, make that change explicit rather than presenting it as another device with the same channel count. The supplier offer and any application approval remain separate decisions. Neither the examples here nor a catalogue headline establishes a completed measurement result or current component availability.
Sources and further reading
The TI product-description cores provide limited simultaneous-sampling and input-MUX examples. Full datasheet timing, physical connections, system performance, compatibility and current supply are not established here.