Part Data Review and Validation

flux

I reviewed the part metadata, symbol terminals, and footprint against the existing official Molex datasheet URL, using the datasheet as the source of truth and checking exact pin-count consistency per the part-project sync workflow
Summary Part metadata review

Table

FieldProject valueDatasheet / official sourceStatus
Manufacturer Part Number74320-100474320-1004OK
Manufacturer NameMolexMolexOK
Part TypeConnectorsDVI-I receptacle connectorAcceptable, but could be more specific
MountThrough HoleThrough-hole, right-angle, panel-mountOK
Designator PrefixJConnectorOK
Datasheet URLMolex sales drawing PDF already setOfficial Molex PDFOK, no update needed
Project descriptionDVI-I, Dual Link Receptacle Connector 29 Position Panel Mount, Through Hole, Right AngleConsistent with distributor/official descriptorsOK
Package / case codeNot presentConnector-specific mechanical form, right-angle panel-mount receptacleMissing
Key specs found

Table

SpecValue
InterfaceDVI-I dual link
MountingPanel mount, through hole, right angle
Current rating3.0 A max
Voltage rating40 V AC RMS max
Contact resistance20 mΩ max initial
Insulation resistance1 GΩ min
Dielectric withstand500 V DC ±50 V
Operating temperature-20 °C to +85 °C
Durability500 cycles
Housing materialLCP, UL94V-0
Contact materialCopper alloy
Shield materialDeep draw steel
What I found in the project Schematic symbol
  • The project currently has 32 terminal components.
  • Of those, I can identify:
    • 24 numeric contacts: 1-24
    • 6 analog-style contacts: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6
    • 2 mounting-related terminals: MH1, MH2
Footprint
  • The layout contains pads corresponding to the schematic terminals, plus two extra footprint mount pads labeled 27 and 28.
  • That suggests the footprint includes:
    • signal/contact pads
    • mounting/mechanical pads
    • additional shell/mount features
Mismatches / flags 1) Pin-count mismatch vs published part description
  • The part is described as 29 position.
  • Your symbol currently represents 30 contact-like positions if I count 1-24 + C1-C6.
  • That is the biggest red flag.
2) Possible extra analog contact
  • Standard DVI-I naming commonly uses C1-C5 for the analog section.
  • Your symbol has both C5_1 with pin number C5 and C5_2 with pin number C6.
  • That may indicate:
    • either a real extra contact in this connector variant,
    • or a footprint implementation detail that got modeled as a separate pin,
    • or an incorrect symbol split.
Because the datasheet text extraction did not return a clean full pin-numbering table, I can’t prove from the PDF text alone whether C6 is a true electrical contact or a mechanical/implementation artifact. So I’m flagging this as needs manual confirmation from the drawing sheet.
3) Symbol terminal metadata is incomplete
  • All terminal pins are currently set to Pin Type = Unspecified.
  • No useful per-pin descriptions are populated.
  • That means ERC value is limited, and the part is not fully documented.
4) Footprint cross-check is only partial
  • I could confirm the footprint has the expected mix of signal/contact pads and mounting-related pads.
  • But I could not fully verify hole diameters, exact spacing, or panel-cutout dimensions from the extracted datasheet text because those sheet-2 mechanical details did not come back cleanly from the PDF query.
5) Project properties are missing some useful metadata
  • Package or Case Code is missing.
  • For a connector like this, a connector-form mechanical descriptor would help.
  • Optional but useful additions:
    • Operating Temperature
    • Max Current
    • Implementation Details
Overall assessment

Table

AreaAssessment
MPN / manufacturer / mount / descriptionGood
Datasheet propertyGood, already official
Key electrical specsAvailable from datasheet
Symbol completenessIncomplete
Footprint high-level structurePlausible
Pin mapping confidenceNot fully verified
Main issue29-position part vs 30 contact-like symbol positions
Recommended next steps
  • Confirm whether C6 is a true electrical contact or just a modeling artifact tied to the analog blade / footprint implementation.
  • If you want, I can next:
    • populate pin descriptions and pin types for all existing terminals,
    • normalize the connector metadata properties,
    • and do a deeper pass to resolve whether C5_2 should remain as an electrical terminal.
I did not change the datasheet property because it was already set and already points to the official Molex PDF, which matches the recommended workflow of preserving correct existing project properties rather than duplicating or overwriting them unnecessarily
Fix pin metadata
Resolve C6 mismatch
Review footprint details
Sign up to send

Files

Pins

Symbol

Layout

Preview

Name
Pin #
Type
Part Type
Terminal Order
1
1
Unspecified
Terminal
2
2
Unspecified
Terminal
3
3
Unspecified
Terminal
4
4
Unspecified
Terminal
5
5
Unspecified
Terminal
6
6
Unspecified
Terminal
7
7
Unspecified
Terminal
8
8
Unspecified
Terminal
9
9
Unspecified
Terminal
10
10
Unspecified
Terminal
11
11
Unspecified
Terminal
12
12
Unspecified
Terminal
13
13
Unspecified
Terminal
14
14
Unspecified
Terminal
15
15
Unspecified
Terminal
16
16
Unspecified
Terminal
17
17
Unspecified
Terminal
18
18
Unspecified
Terminal

0743201004

0743201004 thumbnail