Keep key identity separate from position count

A position count tells you how many contact locations a connector presents. It does not describe the complete mating identity. The Power Key references distinguish key variants within a named family, so two entries can share a position count while answering different pairing requirements. A useful comparison therefore starts with the family and the documented key variant rather than treating the cavity count as a substitute for that variant.

This distinction changes how a connector comparison is organized. Position count describes the repeated contact arrangement; the key identity belongs to the relationship between the components that are intended to meet. Those are different questions even when both appear on one catalogue row. Keeping them separate prevents a matching count from being silently promoted into a matching interface.

Use the named Power Key documentation as the boundary of this explanation. A family-specific paired reference is more informative than a general statement that connectors with similar outlines should fit. The result of the comparison is a documented candidate relationship, with the exact drawing still controlling its applicability. It is not a dimensional reconstruction from a photograph or a physical mating result.

Read the same-key plug/header relationship

The Power Key guide identifies the plug and header as complementary component roles and records their key relationship. Read those roles together. A key reference attached only to a plug is incomplete for a pairing decision until the corresponding header reference is retained. This is why a paired catalogue relationship carries information that two separately collected descriptions can lose.

Colour can make variants easier to distinguish, but it is a different descriptive aid from the documented key relationship. A colour description should accompany the relevant family reference rather than replace it. Otherwise, a visual label can become an unsupported rule about which components belong together, especially when information has been copied from different product descriptions.

The practical question is whether both component references preserve the same documented pairing basis. Record which item is the plug, which is the header and where their relationship is specified. This creates a clear comparison between complementary roles instead of a comparison between appearances. The named manufacturer table supplies the relationship; it does not create a universal colour code for other connector families.

Separate the TPA from mating-key identity

A terminal position assurance component addresses contact seating within an assembly. That responsibility is separate from identifying the key relationship between a plug and a header. The Power Key references list the TPA alongside the principal connector components, making it useful to retain these identities as separate entries rather than treating them as interchangeable names for the same feature.

The distinction is between an internal assembly relationship and an external mating relationship. A contact must occupy its intended position in its housing; a housing must also correspond to the intended mating component. Describing a TPA does not answer which header is paired with the plug. Equally, a documented plug/header pair does not by itself identify the particular position-assurance component associated with that assembly.

For a sourcing comparison, organize the information by these responsibilities. Keep the housing reference with its mating-key evidence and the TPA reference with its contact-assurance role. This gives each item a meaningful place without inferring an assembly condition from a component name. The application specification and controlling customer drawing remain the references for the applicable assembly, rather than an assumed consequence of matching catalogue terms.

Distinguish board orientation from mating keying

Board orientation is another interface question. The Power Key material distinguishes PCB polarization from the key relationship at the mating face. A feature that helps establish how a header belongs on a board does not, merely by being present, establish which plug belongs on that header. The two descriptions refer to different relationships and should remain separate in the comparison.

This is particularly important when a connector description mixes board-facing and cable-facing information. The board-facing description concerns the relationship between the header and its mounting context. The plug/header key relationship concerns the components at the mating interface. Combining both into a single word such as polarization can hide which relationship the cited evidence actually describes.

Finish the comparison by assigning each reference to its interface: contact seating within the assembly, plug-to-header key identity, or header-to-board orientation. That separation makes missing drawing context visible without replacing it with a guessed mechanical explanation. It also preserves the manufacturer application specification precedence of the customer drawing. The outcome is a clearer set of documented relationships, not a claim that every physical or electrical aspect of the assembly has been approved.

Sources and further reading

Limited to the named Power Key catalogue, application-specification and product-overview scope. Dimensional fit, electrical ratings and application approval are not established.