Part Audit Review
Thought for 18 sec
I’m inspecting the stored part definition and footprint geometry now, while checking Phoenix Contact’s official product documentation.
Thought for 33 sec
The stored definition contains four terminals and four footprint pads; the current pad geometry also appears scaled incorrectly. I’m confirming the exact manufacturer drawing and ratings before updating or flagging anything.
Worked for 3 mins 59 sec
Created a project doc
Part Audit Report
Part Audit Report
Scope
Audit of Phoenix Contact PCB header MSTB 2,5/ 2-GF-5,08, order number / stored MPN 1776508, against the official Phoenix Contact product documentation.
Authoritative source
- Official product datasheet URL already stored in the project: https://www.phoenixcontact.com/en-us/products/pcb-header-mstb-25-2-gf-508-1776508?type=pdf
- Official product page: https://www.phoenixcontact.com/en-pc/products/pcb-header-mstb-25-2-gf-508-1776508
- Official dimensional drawing image: https://caas.phoenixcontact.com/caas/v1/stable/media/53110/full/b1500?format=jpg
The existing Datasheet URL is populated, valid, official, and identifies item 1776508, so no Datasheet property update was required.
Stored part information
Key manufacturer specificationsAudit complete. The existing Datasheet URL is valid and official, so no update was needed; however, the part has critical errors: four terminals/pads instead of two, and footprint dimensions appear scaled 1000× too small. Do not use it for fabrication as-is.
Full findings: Part Audit Report. I also filed an internal part-quality report.
Rebuild part definition
Improve part metadata
Verify mechanical details
