I found an existing Datasheet URL on the part-level metadata, so I’m not overwriting it; I also found TE’s official product page and customer drawing for verification. The footprint hole pattern matches the TE drawing on pin count, spacing, and drill range; I’m packaging the detailed findings into a short review file now.
Worked for 1 min 37 sec
Created a project doc
Part Information Review: TE Connectivity 3-213598-2
Because a Datasheet URL was already set, it was not overwritten. The official TE product drawing URL above is included here as the primary external verification source.
Schematic terminal components found
ACTIVE_CONTACT_1: Terminal, Pin Number 1, Pin Type Unspecified
ACTIVE_CONTACT_2: Terminal, Pin Number 2, Pin Type Unspecified
GROUNDING_CONTACT: Terminal, Pin Number 3, Pin Type Unspecified
No pin descriptions were present on the terminal components.
Footprint data found
The KiCad footprint asset 32135982.kicad_mod includes:
Fab outline: from (-9.21, -14.75) to (21.91, 16.37) mm, giving a 31.12 mm × 31.12 mm outline.
Courtyard: from (-10.21, -15.75) to (22.91, 17.37) mm.
Pad 1: through-hole rectangular at (0.000, 0.000) mm, pad size 3.713 mm, drill 2.475 mm.
Pad 2: through-hole circular at (12.700, 0.000) mm, pad size 3.713 mm, drill 2.475 mm.
Pad 3: through-hole circular at (6.350, 4.190) mm, pad size 3.713 mm, drill 2.475 mm.
Manufacturer TE Connectivity matches TE official product page.
Part type Connector is appropriate.
Mount Panel is directionally correct, but the TE product is both panel-mount and PCB through-hole solder terminated.
Datasheet URL was already set, so no property update was made. The existing URL appears to be an uploaded PDF copy rather than a direct TE URL.
Schematic Symbol / Pins
Pin count matches the datasheet/drawing: 3 positions.
Pin numbering matches the TE drawing naming convention: two active contacts plus one grounding contact.
Symbol designators are semantically reasonable:
Pin 1: ACTIVE_CONTACT_1
Pin 2: ACTIVE_CONTACT_2
Pin 3: GROUNDING_CONTACT
Mismatch / incomplete metadata: all terminal Pin Type values are Unspecified. For a power connector, these should ideally be marked as passive/power contacts according to the platform’s convention.
Mismatch / incomplete metadata: Pin Description is missing for all three pins. Recommended descriptions:
Pin 1: Active contact 1 / line or neutral contact
Pin 2: Active contact 2 / line or neutral contact
Pin 3: Grounding contact / protective earth
Footprint
Pad count matches: 3 through-hole pads.
Pad numbering matches the drawing: pad 1 and pad 2 are the two active contacts; pad 3 is the grounding contact.
Pad center spacing between pads 1 and 2 is 12.700 mm, matching TE’s 12.7 mm centerline.
Pad 3 is centered between pads 1 and 2 and offset 4.190 mm from the active-contact hole centerline, matching the TE drawing relation.
Drill diameter is 2.475 mm, which falls inside the TE recommended hole diameter range of 2.41–2.54 mm.
Pad/land diameter of 3.713 mm could not be verified against the TE drawing because the drawing extraction did not expose a land diameter. It appears mechanically plausible but remains unverified.
Fab outline is 31.12 mm × 31.12 mm, matching the product height/width. Product depth is represented by the 3D STEP model rather than the 2D footprint outline.
The footprint includes the 3D STEP model asset 3-213598-2.stp.
Flagged Mismatches / Risks
Pin descriptions missing. The symbol lacks explicit pin descriptions for active contacts and grounding contact.
Pin types unspecified. All terminals are Unspecified; this reduces ERC usefulness for a mains/power connector.
Existing Datasheet URL is not the direct TE URL. A Datasheet URL is already set, so it was not overwritten, but the direct official TE product drawing URL should be kept in the review notes or optionally used if the user wants direct-vendor sourcing.
Pad land diameter not verified. TE’s OCR-extracted drawing data confirmed drill size and hole positions, but not pad/land diameter. The current 3.713 mm land size should be verified manually against the official drawing/CAD if exact land geometry is critical.
Mains safety context. This is a 15 A AC receptacle; downstream PCB usage must enforce appropriate creepage, clearance, copper sizing, fusing, and regulatory constraints. Those constraints are not visible in the standalone part footprint review.
Recommended Follow-up Fixes
Add pin descriptions to the three terminal components.
Set pin types to an appropriate passive/power-contact classification if supported by the part workflow.
Optionally replace or augment the Datasheet URL with the direct TE product drawing URL if the project should point to the vendor-hosted source.
Manually verify land diameter and any panel/cutout datum relationships against TE drawing 213598 or TE CAD before manufacturing a board around this connector.