Part Information Review and Audit
4:37
Thought for 5 sec
Read BOM.
Read layout.
Read schematic.
Search 2 web sources.
Thought for 3 sec
Thought for 4 sec
Search 3 web sources.
I reviewed the part project and the current part metadata.
- The Datasheet URL is already set to Omron’s official PDF, so I did not update that property.
- The project already has the core metadata expected for a part project: Manufacturer Part Number = G2R-2-DC12, Manufacturer Name = Omron, Part Type = Electromechanical Components, Mount = PCB, and Designator Prefix = J. The part-project sync workflow also expects exact metadata, datasheet-backed pin definitions, and a full terminal audit for this kind of check
Table
| Field | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer Part Number | Present | G2R-2-DC12 |
| Manufacturer Name | Present | Omron |
| Datasheet URL | Present | Official Omron PDF already set |
| Part Type | Present | Electromechanical Components |
| Mount | Present | PCB |
| Designator Prefix | Present | J |
| Description | Present | “General Purpose Relays Power PCB Relay DPDT 12VDC Semi-Sealed” |
| Package / Case Code | Missing | Not set in project |
| Operating Voltage / Max Current / Operating Temperature | Missing | Not set in project |
The symbol currently has 8 terminals, which is consistent with the project’s 8 relay terminals. Every terminal already has a Pin Number assigned, which is exactly what should exist before a datasheet sync review
Current terminal mapping
Table
- The footprint contains 8 pads, matching the 8 schematic terminals.
- A footprint body/silkscreen exists, so there is no obvious missing-footprint issue.
- I could not fully verify the hole pattern, exact pad spacing, or body outline dimensions against the datasheet drawing, because the datasheet PDF content was not text-extractable in this session.
Table
| Area | Finding | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Pin typing | All 8 terminals have Pin Type = Unspecified | High |
| Pin descriptions | No datasheet-backed pin descriptions are present | Medium |
| Package metadata | Package / Case Code is missing | Medium |
| Datasheet cross-check | Full pinout/dimension verification against the PDF drawing could not be completed | Medium |
- There is no obvious pin-count mismatch: the part project has 8 terminals and the footprint has 8 pads.
- The terminal names are sensible for a DPDT relay: coil, NC, COM, and NO on two poles.
- The biggest concrete problem in the current project is that all terminal pin types are still unspecified, which is exactly the kind of issue a datasheet-sync audit is meant to catch and correct
I could not extract the Omron PDF contents reliably enough to quote datasheet specs verbatim. Per the part-sync workflow, when the datasheet cannot be parsed cleanly, the safe path is to flag the discrepancy rather than guess
Recommended next step
If you want, I can do the follow-up cleanup pass and:
- set datasheet-backed pin types for all 8 terminals,
- add short pin descriptions,
- fill in missing project properties like Package or Case Code,
- and re-check the symbol/footprint once you provide either:
- the datasheet PDF as an upload, or
- screenshots of the pin arrangement and dimensions / PCB terminal layout pages.
Fix pin definitions
Add package metadata
Check footprint dimensions
Run full part review
To get started, talk to Flux or create a New Document.
Welcome 👋
Flux accelerates your PCB design with AI.
Create your account to start using this component and bring your ideas to life.