Part Metadata Review and Validation
Thought for 1 min 48 sec
I reviewed the part metadata, symbol structure, footprint presence, and the Panasonic datasheet flow for part-project verification. The current
Summary
Metadata check
Datasheet URL already points to Panasonic’s official catalog PDF, so there’s no missing datasheet link to update. The review method follows the standard part-project datasheet sync workflow: verify the datasheet URL first, then compare metadata, pin count, and terminal data against the datasheet as the source of truthTable
| Field | Current project | Datasheet / official source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPN | AXK6A2337YG | AXK6A2337YG | OK |
| Manufacturer | Panasonic | Panasonic | OK |
| Part Type | Connectors | Board-to-board connector, header | OK |
| Mount | Surface Mount | Header, SMT | OK |
| Designator Prefix | J | Connector prefix is appropriate | OK |
| Description | 120 Position Connector Header, Outer Shroud Contacts Surface Mount Gold | Header, board-to-board connector, 120 contacts, 0.5 mm pitch, Au plating | Mostly OK |
Table
| Spec | Value |
|---|---|
| Contact count | 120 |
| Type | Header, 2-piece board-to-board connector |
| Series | P5K / P5KS |
| Pitch | 0.5 mm |
| Mated height | 3.0 mm |
| Current rating | 0.5 A/contact, 10 A max total |
| Dielectric strength | 150 V AC for 1 min |
| Insulation resistance | 1000 MΩ min. |
| Contact resistance | 60 mΩ max. |
| Durability | 50 cycles |
| Plating | Ni base, Au surface |
- The part project contains 120 terminal elements, which matches the datasheet contact count exactly.
- Each terminal’s Pin Number appears to be populated from 1 to 120.
- The main issue is that the terminals are still very incomplete semantically:
- Pin Type is set to Unspecified across the symbol.
- I did not find useful per-pin functional descriptions in the Panasonic document.
- The datasheet also does not provide distinct electrical functions for individual contacts, so the lack of unique pin descriptions is understandable for this connector.
- Because this is a connector with symmetric contacts and no signal-specific pin functions in the datasheet, the biggest symbol gap is not pin numbering but terminal typing / descriptive labeling
- A footprint exists in the layout with pad objects present.
- The layout shows 130 PCB nodes, including the footprint container and pads, which is consistent with a connector footprint being present.
- From the datasheet, the key footprint-relevant parameters are:
- 0.50 mm pad pitch
- 0.25 mm nominal pad width
- B = 29.50 mm for the 120-pin version
- A = 33.20 mm
- I could confirm footprint presence, but not all pad geometry values were exposed directly enough from the layout readout to numerically prove every pad dimension matches the datasheet. So footprint existence is confirmed, but full geometric verification remains partial.
Table
| Area | Finding | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Datasheet URL | Already set and appears official | None |
| MPN / manufacturer / type | Matches | None |
| Pin count | 120 terminals vs 120 contacts | None |
| Pin descriptions | Datasheet does not provide unique per-contact functions; project also lacks meaningful pin descriptions | Low |
| Pin type | All terminals appear Unspecified | Medium |
| Footprint geometry | Footprint exists, but I could not fully validate every mechanical dimension from the available layout output | Medium |
| Description wording | Current description is generally correct, but it does not include 0.5 mm pitch or 3.0 mm mated height | Low |
If you want, next I can do one targeted improvement pass on the part project:
- normalize the description to include 0.5 mm pitch and 3.0 mm mated height
- set terminal metadata more appropriately for a connector
- do a stricter footprint-to-datasheet dimensional audit against the Panasonic recommended land pattern
