Review summary
I reviewed the current part project against the official Same Sky datasheet and the existing symbol/layout.
What’s already set
The project already has a Datasheet URL, so I did not search for or update it. The current project metadata already includes:
Manufacturer Part Number: SLW-864574-5A-RA-N-D
Manufacturer Name: Same Sky
Mount: Through Hole
Designator Prefix: S
Datasheet URL: official Same Sky PDF
Key datasheet specs
From the datasheet, this part is:
- Slide switch
- SPDT
- Non-shorting
- Right-angle
- Through-hole
- 2 positions
- 3 electrical terminals
- 2 mechanical mounting tabs / anchor posts
- Rated 50 Vdc
- Rated 500 mA
- Contact resistance 100 mΩ max
- Insulation resistance 100 MΩ min @ 500 Vdc
- Withstanding voltage 500 Vac for 1 minute
- Operating temperature -20 °C to 70 °C
- Storage temperature -25 °C to 70 °C
- Mechanical life 10,000 cycles
- Body size reported as 8.6 x 4.5 x 6.2 mm in the product description, while one extracted source line also surfaced 7.4 mm overall height, so the height dimension should be treated carefully and verified directly from the drawing before finalizing library metadata.
Symbol / pin-count cross-check
What exists in the symbol now
The schematic currently contains five terminal components:
Their current Pin Number values are:
Assessment
- Pin/terminal count looks plausible and likely correct for this switch footprint:
- 3 electrical pins
- 2 mechanical support pins
- The PCB layout also contains five pads with matching names:
Important limitation
The datasheet extraction I could get does not include an explicit numbered terminal table, only that the switch is SPDT (non-shorting). So I can confirm:
- the project has the right count
- the footprint has the right class of pads
- but I cannot fully prove the exact terminal numbering-to-function mapping from the extracted datasheet text alone
Per the part-sync review rules, pin numbers should never be guessed , and the datasheet should remain the source of truth for exact pin assignments .
Mismatches and issues found
1) Pin types are incomplete
All five terminals currently have Pin Type = Unspecified:
Recommended fix
- 1, 2, 3: likely Passive
- MH1, MH2: likely Passive or mechanical-only handling depending on how you want this part modeled
This is the clearest mismatch in the current part.
2) Pin descriptions are missing
None of the terminals currently have short pin descriptions. For a switch part, it would be helpful to define:
- common/wiper terminal
- throw A
- throw B
- mounting tab 1
- mounting tab 2
But I can’t assign those labels with confidence until I can read the switch schematic graphic or terminal legend more explicitly from the datasheet.
3) Terminal naming is functional but not ideal
Current naming:
This is acceptable, but if the datasheet clearly shows a common contact and two throws, more descriptive naming would improve usability.
4) Part Type is broad
Current project Part Type is Electromechanical Components. That is not necessarily wrong, but it is fairly broad. A more specific value like Switch or Slide Switch would be better if Flux supports that category.
5) Description could be improved
Current description is decent, but it can be made more library-friendly. The part-sync guidance recommends descriptions that start with what the part does, then key specs .
A stronger version would be something like:
SPDT non-shorting slide switch, right-angle through-hole, 2 position, 50 Vdc 500 mA
6) Possible dimension inconsistency
The extracted datasheet text surfaced both:
- 8.6 x 4.5 x 6.2 mm
- and 8.6 x 4.5 x 7.4 mm
That may be due to body height vs overall actuator height, or a retrieval ambiguity. I would flag that for manual verification from the mechanical drawing before using the dimensions as authoritative metadata.
What looks correct
The layout has a single footprint with:
- three electrical pads:
- two mounting pads:
That matches the expected physical structure of this switch well.
What I could not fully verify
I could not extract the exact recommended hole coordinates / drill sizes / spacing numerically from the datasheet text, only that the datasheet includes a recommended PCB layout and mechanical drawing. So:
- footprint topology appears correct
- exact land pattern dimensions remain unverified
Overall verdict
Good
- Official datasheet URL already present
- MPN and manufacturer match
- Mounting style matches
- Symbol and footprint both appear to represent a 3-terminal SPDT slide switch with 2 mounting tabs
- Total pad count is likely correct
Needs improvement
- All terminal
Pin Type fields are still Unspecified
- Pin descriptions are missing
- Terminal functional mapping is not yet confirmed from the extracted datasheet text
- Part Type could be made more specific
- Description could be tightened up
- Mechanical dimensions should be verified against the drawing because of the 6.2 mm vs 7.4 mm extraction inconsistency
Recommended next step
If you want, I can do the next pass and:
- set pin types for 1, 2, 3, MH1, and MH2
- improve the part description
- refine the part type
- and, if you want, try one more targeted extraction pass specifically on the datasheet schematic graphic to determine which of terminals 1/2/3 is the common contact before updating pin descriptions.