Part Review and Datasheet Validation
Thought for 57 sec
Part review summary
Available part information
Key specs extracted from the datasheet
Cross-check results
1) Schematic symbol
2) Footprint
3) Pin descriptions vs datasheet
Flags / mismatches
Bottom line
I reviewed the available project metadata, schematic, footprint, and the TE customer drawing for this part.
Datasheet status
Table
| Item | Result |
|---|---|
| Datasheet property present | Yes |
| Datasheet URL used | |
| Web search/update needed | No |
Table
| Field | What I found |
|---|---|
| MPN | 5650963-5 |
| Manufacturer | TE Connectivity |
| Description | Eurocard Type C receptacle assembly, lead-free, 96 position, 3.30 mm solder posts, with board-locks |
| Contact count in project | 98 total pads/terminals = 96 signal contacts + 2 mounting/board-lock holes |
| Package / style | Through-hole Eurocard Type C backplane connector footprint with board-locks |
| 3D model | Present |
| Footprint asset | Present (56509635.kicad_mod) |
| Schematic symbol style | Pin-per-terminal symbol, one terminal per contact/hole |
Table
| Spec | Datasheet value |
|---|---|
| Positions | 96 |
| Rows | 3 |
| Column spacing | 31 spaces at 2.54 mm |
| Row pitch | 2.54 mm typ |
| Signal hole drill | 1.00 ± 0.08 mm |
| Board-lock hole drill | 2.79 ± 0.1 mm, 2 places |
| Signal pad pattern | A1-A32, B1-B32, C1-C32 implied by PCB layout |
| Board-lock spacing | 93.98 mm REF center-to-center |
| End offset to board-lock holes | 5.63 mm |
| Overall connector length | 90 ± 0.1 mm |
| Height | 6.45 ± 0.15 mm |
| Depth | 8.45 ± 0.05 mm |
| Contact material | Copper alloy |
| Contact finish | DIN 41612 Class 2 in contact area, tin plate on posts |
| Housing material | Glass-filled polymer |
Table
| Check | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Signal contact count | Pass | The schematic has A1-A32, B1-B32, C1-C32. |
| Mounting features represented | Pass | Board-lock holes are represented as MH1 and MH2. |
| Numbering consistency | Pass | Spot-checking from A1 through B32 and C32, the numbering scheme matches the expected 3-row 32-column pattern. |
| Pin descriptions | Needs improvement | The symbol terminals only carry pin-number-style properties; there are no descriptive pin texts beyond identifiers like A1. |
Table
| Check | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Pad count | Pass | Footprint contains 98 pads: 96 signal + 2 board-locks. |
| Signal drill size | Pass | Footprint uses 1.0 mm drills for signal holes, matching datasheet. |
| Board-lock drill size | Pass | MH1 and MH2 use 2.79 mm drill, matching datasheet. |
| Contact pitch | Pass | Pads are laid out on 2.54 mm pitch horizontally and vertically between rows. |
| Mechanical style | Pass | Through-hole Eurocard receptacle footprint with two larger board-lock holes matches the drawing. |
Table
| Check | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Datasheet pin function table | Not available in the drawing used | The TE file appears to be a customer/mechanical drawing, not a functional pin-description datasheet. |
| Project pin descriptions | Missing semantic descriptions | The symbol has identifiers and pin numbers, but no verbal descriptions per contact. |
| Verifiable mismatch | None found | I could not identify a function-name mismatch because the source drawing does not provide per-pin functions. |
Table
| Severity | Item | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Info | Datasheet property | Already set correctly; no update required. |
| Info | MPN / part identity | Project metadata matches TE Connectivity 5650963-5. |
| Warning | Pin descriptions | The project does not currently include descriptive text for individual contacts; only pin identifiers are present. |
| Warning | Source document scope | The linked TE document is a mechanical/customer drawing, so it supports footprint and numbering validation well, but not functional pin-description validation. |
| Pass | Symbol vs footprint | Terminal naming appears consistent between symbol and footprint. |
| Pass | Footprint vs datasheet | Hole sizes, row/column structure, and board-lock features match. |
- The part metadata is broadly consistent with TE Connectivity 5650963-5.
- The footprint looks correct against the TE drawing.
- The symbol numbering also looks correct for a 96-position, 3-row Type C connector.
- The main gap is pin descriptions: the project currently has only numeric/contact identifiers, and the linked TE drawing does not provide richer per-pin descriptions to validate against.
If you want, I can next do one of these:
- create a cleaner pin-description table for all contacts based on the A/B/C row scheme, or
- inspect whether this part project exposes any footprint courtyard/body-outline issues in the layout.
Create pin table
Check footprint outlines
Run layout review
