Part Data Review and Validation
Thought for 5 mins 33 sec
I completed the review as far as the available sources allowed.
1) Part information reviewed
Project metadata for 3020-06-0300-00
Table
| Field | Result |
|---|---|
| MPN | 3020-06-0300-00 |
| Manufacturer | CNC Tech |
| Description | Conn Shrouded Header HDR 6 POS 2.54 mm Solder ST SMD |
| Mount | Surface Mount |
| Package / Case | CONN-SMD |
| Part type | Connector |
| Designator prefix | J |
| Current project Datasheet URL property | DigiKey product page, not the manufacturer PDF |
Table
| Field | Result |
|---|---|
| Positions | 6 |
| Rows | 2 |
| Pitch | 2.54 mm |
| Row spacing | 2.54 mm |
| Connector type | Header, male pin |
| Style | Board-to-cable/wire |
| Shrouding | Shrouded, 4 wall |
| Termination | Solder |
| Mounting | Surface mount |
| Fastening | Push-pull |
| Insulation height | 9.00 mm |
| Contact shape | Square |
| Contact material | Brass |
| Contact finish | Gold flash |
| Insulation material | PA9T / Nylon 9T |
| Features | Keying slot |
| Operating temperature | -40 °C to 105 °C |
| Flammability | UL94 V-0 |
| Current rating | 3 A (AC/DC) |
A datasheet-related URL was already set on the part project, so I did not modify properties.
I also found the manufacturer PDF reference:
3) Datasheet scan result
I attempted to scan the official PDF directly, but the PDF extraction failed in the available tooling, so I could not reliably extract the full internal tables from the document itself.
What I could confirm
Table
| Category | Status |
|---|---|
| Electrical characteristics | Partial only: 3 A, -40 °C to 105 °C, material/plating details recovered |
| Absolute maximum ratings | Not recovered |
| Recommended operating conditions | Partial only: operating temperature recovered |
| Pin descriptions | Not recovered from datasheet text |
| Package dimensions | Partial only: 9.00 mm insulation height, 2.54 mm pitch, 2.54 mm row spacing |
| Special features | Keying slot, shrouded housing, gold flash contacts |
Because the PDF content was not machine-readable here, I cannot claim exact datasheet tables for:
- absolute maximum ratings
- recommended operating conditions
- per-pin descriptions
- full mechanical drawing dimensions
- recommended PCB land pattern
The schematic symbol is currently built from six separate terminals:
Footprint status
The footprint exists and includes pads 1-6 with an imported KiCad footprint asset.
Findings
Table
| Check | Result | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Footprint present | Pass | No immediate missing-footprint issue |
| Pad count vs part position count | Pass: 6 pads / 6 positions | Low |
| Symbol pin count vs pad count | Pass: 6 / 6 | Low |
| Pin names/descriptions | Fail: no functional pin names, only numbers | Medium |
| Pin electrical types | Fail: all terminals are Unspecified | Low to Medium |
| Datasheet property quality | Warning: property points to DigiKey page, not manufacturer PDF | Medium |
| Mechanical verification vs datasheet drawing | Incomplete | Medium to High |
| Pin numbering clarity for mating orientation | Warning | High |
The biggest practical risk is pin-numbering ambiguity.
Your symbol presents pins as:
But the footprint pad layout is a 2 x 3 connector with alternating numbering by row:
- top row: 1, 3, 5
- bottom row: 2, 4, 6
That does not necessarily mean the netlist is wrong, but it does create a real risk of:
- incorrect cable mapping
- mirrored connector interpretation
- assembly/debug mistakes if someone assumes left-to-right symbol grouping matches physical row grouping
Table
| Risk | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Datasheet property points to distributor page | Can cause incorrect documentation handoff and weaker traceability |
| Symbol lacks orientation/keying information | High chance of wiring mistakes for boxed headers |
| Symbol lacks explicit pin naming beyond numbers | Easier to mis-assign nets on dual-row connectors |
| Full footprint dimensions not verified against manufacturer drawing | Could hide pad-length/body-courtyard mismatch |
| No extracted recommended land pattern confirmation | Potential solderability or assembly issue remains unverified |
- The part identity and high-level metadata look consistent with a 6-position, 2-row, 2.54 mm, shrouded SMD box header.
- The count-level symbol/footprint mapping looks okay.
- The largest issue is the symbol’s poor representation of connector orientation and numbering.
- I cannot fully validate the footprint geometry against the manufacturer drawing because the official PDF could not be parsed by the available tools in this session.
If you want, I can next do one focused pass on just the improvement actions needed for this part project, such as replacing the current datasheet property with the manufacturer PDF URL, or restructuring the symbol numbering to better match the physical connector.
Use manufacturer PDF
Check pad geometry
Review connector symbol
Run more checks
