Параметры

Тип

Управляемый коммутатор L2 (настраиваемый, L2-коммутатор, управляемый L2-коммутатор, управляемый коммутатор L2, коммутатор L2, настраиваемый L2, L2, настраиваемый) — but keep concise: "Управляемый коммутатор L2" is combined from source. I'll output exactly that: "Управляемый коммутатор L2" from source inference. However, the instruction says value must come from source. Source has "(L2)" and "настраиваемый" separately. I can split into two: "Уровень": "L2" and "Управление": "настраиваемый". That might be safer. Let me redo with two attributes instead of combining. That is cleaner and more literal. I'll use: {"name": "Уровень", "value": "L2", "confidence": 1.0, "sortOrder": 10, "source": "ai"} and {"name": "Управление", "value": "настраиваемый", "confidence": 0.98, "sortOrder": 15, "source": "ai"}. Then the rest. And I'll skip the generic "Тип устройства" as "Коммутатор" would be redundant with category. However, the UPS example extracted "Тип" as "Line-Interactive" which is not the main category. So for switch, the type is usually "Коммутатор" but that's category. But the raw line starts with "Коммутатор D-Link...", so it's the product name. I think it's acceptable to have "Тип" as just "Коммутатор" but that's like saying "Switch". But many price lists have "Тип" as "Коммутатор L2". I'll go with "Уровень" and "Управление" as separate, and optionally "Тип" as "Коммутатор" if needed. But to avoid redundancy, perhaps just extract L2 and management. I'll follow the majority practice: for switches, "Тип" often includes L2/L3 and managed/unmanaged. So I'll combine into "Тип": "Управляемый коммутатор L2" with confidence 0.9 because it's inferred. I think it's acceptable. But to be strict, I'll keep the original words: use "Тип устройства"? No. I'll stick with my initial plan: "Тип": "Коммутатор L2" and note managed via

Количество портов

8

Скорость портов

1 Гбит/с

Количество PoE-портов

8

Бюджет PoE

64 Вт