What I verified Key specs from the official datasheet Cross-check results Properties / metadata

• Datasheet property was missing, so I set it to the official Hirose PDF.
• The project description is broadly consistent with the datasheet:
  • 70 positions matches
  • 0.4 mm pitch matches
  • SMT receptacle matches
  • 3.0 mm stack height matches
  • -55 °C to +85 °C, 50 V, 0.3 A/contact all match
• One thing to note:
  • the automated part review still reports missing/invalid recognition for Manufacturer Name, Part Type, and previously Datasheet. That suggests a property naming/recognition issue worth rechecking.

Schematic symbol

• The symbol contains 70 terminals, numbered 1 through 70.
• That matches the datasheet pin count.
• All terminals are set as Passive, which is reasonable for a board-to-board connector.
• I did not find an explicit per-pin functional table in the datasheet for this part, so there are no individual signal names/descriptions to validate against.

Pin descriptions

• I did not see per-pin descriptive names in the part project.
• The datasheet appears to provide mechanical/numeric contact numbering, not a function map like “pin 1 = ...”.
• So:
  • No confirmed mismatch
  • but also no datasheet-backed pin descriptions are present

Footprint

• The footprint contains 70 pads, so the pad count matches the connector.
• I could confirm the datasheet includes the expected recommended land pattern/mechanical dimensions for the 70-position variant.
• I could not fully verify pad geometry, spacing, and outline dimensions against the datasheet from the currently exposed layout metadata alone, because the layout data returned pad objects but not enough detailed measured geometry for a full dimensional audit.

Mismatches / flags Bottom line

• No obvious part-identity mismatch
• Symbol pin count matches
• Footprint pad count matches
• Official datasheet link is now set
• Main remaining concerns are:
  • property normalization / review recognition
  • full dimensional footprint audit against the Hirose recommended land pattern

• normalize the project properties so the part review passes cleanly, or
• do a stricter footprint-dimension audit against the Hirose drawing.