In https://linear.app/buildwithflux/issue/FLUX-13613/part-quality-issue-bq24295rget
you mentioned:
BQ24295RGET library symbol exposes duplicate BAT/SYS/SW/PGND pins, but pin-level mutations using documented identifiers (e.g. U12:BAT::14, SYS::16, SW::19, PGND::18) repeatedly resolve to the first duplicate or wrong pin.
I checked the datasheet and looks like you made a false claim, check it again
I’ll re-check the BQ24295RGET datasheet pinout against the current library symbol and the exact claim in FLUX-13613, then state clearly whether the report was wrong.
You’re right that my wording was misleading. The symbol is not wrong for having repeated names: TI specifies BAT 13/14, SYS 15/16, PGND 17/18, and SW 19/20 as distinct physical pins sharing names.
The accurate claim should have been: pin-level mutation appeared to resolve ambiguously between legitimate same-named terminals. Calling them “duplicate pins” incorrectly implied a library-symbol defect. I retract that characterization.