Part Metadata Review and Update
Thought for 4 mins 50 sec
Done — I reviewed the part metadata, checked the manufacturer datasheet, and updated the project’s
What I verified
Current project metadata
Datasheet URL to the manufacturer-hosted PDF: Switch-ANT.pdf.Table
| Field | Current status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer Part Number | ANT13SECQE | Matches datasheet |
| Manufacturer Name | CIT Relay and Switch | Matches datasheet branding closely |
| Part Type | Switch | Correct |
| Datasheet URL | Present now | I added the official CIT PDF |
| Designator Prefix | U | Unusual for a switch |
| Package or Case Code | Missing | Not populated |
| Description | Missing | Not populated |
From the CIT ANT-series datasheet, ANT13SECQE is a miniature toggle switch, SPDT, ON-OFF-ON, with PC pin terminals, silver-plated contacts, epoxy seal, and 8.89 mm 1/4-40NS keyway bushing. The series electrical rating is 5 A @ 120 VAC / 28 VDC and 2 A @ 250 VAC, with operating temperature -40°C to 85°C and electrical life 40,000 cycles typical. The switch-function diagram shows pin 2 is common, and pins 1 and 3 are the throws. The datasheet is the source of truth for pin count and numbering, which should match the part project exactly
Symbol cross-check
What matches
Table
Table
| Item | Status | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Pin role descriptions | Missing | Datasheet says 2 = common, 1 and 3 = throws |
| Pin descriptions | Missing | No Pin Description values found |
| Pin types | Incomplete | All three pins are Unspecified |
| Description | Missing | Should describe the part as a miniature SPDT ON-OFF-ON toggle switch |
| Designator Prefix | Questionable | U is not a typical prefix for a switch |
For part-project audits like this, the expected workflow is to keep exact pin count/numbering from the datasheet and fill missing terminal metadata such as pin descriptions and types
Footprint cross-check
What matches
Table
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Pad count | Pass - footprint has 3 pads |
| Pad numbering | Pass - pads 1/2/3 exist |
| Terminal style consistency | Likely pass - footprint is consistent with datasheet C = PC Pin option |
I could confirm the footprint has 3 pads, but I could not fully validate mechanical correctness because the indexed layout data does not expose:
- pad size
- drill diameter
- exact XY pitch
- hole plating/type
- body outline dimensions
So there is no obvious footprint mismatch, but also not enough exposed geometry to prove the land pattern exactly matches the datasheet.
Main issues flagged
Table
| Priority | Issue |
|---|---|
| High | Pin role metadata is missing: common vs throws are not captured |
| High | All three terminals are still Unspecified |
| Medium | Part Description is missing |
| Medium | Package or Case Code is missing |
| Low | Designator Prefix = U is unusual for a switch |
- I updated the Datasheet URL to the official CIT PDF.
- The symbol pin count and numbering are correct.
- The biggest problems are missing pin descriptions, missing switch-contact roles, and all pins left as
Unspecified. - The footprint looks structurally plausible because it has 3 pads for a 3-pin PC-pin SPDT toggle, but I can’t fully validate the mechanical pattern from the exposed layout data alone.
Fix pin metadata
Add missing fields
Check footprint dimensions
Set Datasheet URL to "https://www.citrelay.com/wp-c..."
0:02
Set Datasheet URL to "https://www.citrelay.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Switch-ANT.pdf"
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.