P Perforation is one of the most critical stages in oil and gas well completion, serving to establish a flow path between the reservoir and the wellbore through the casing and cement. the effectiveness of the perforation process is highly dependent on the compatibility between the perforation design and the formation characteristics, as an inappropriate design may reduce reservoir-to-wellbore communication and ultimately decrease well productivity. therefore, the selection of perforating pressure conditions, perforating methods, and charge types must be adjusted to the reservoir characteristics in order to achieve optimal perforation performance. this study aims to evaluate the suitability of perforation design based on formation characteristics in three wells of field x and to provide appropriate perforation design recommendations based on the evaluation results and theoretical considerations.this study employed a descriptive quantitative approach using a case study of well a1, well a2, and well a3 in field x. the research utilized secondary data obtained from the operating company, including porosity, permeability, net pay, reservoir pressure, hydrostatic pressure, lithology, well deviation, perforation interval, perforating pressure conditions, perforating methods, and perforating charge types. the research procedure consisted of data collection, identification of formation characteristics and existing perforation designs, followed by an evaluation of the design suitability based on relevant theories and literature. the evaluation focused on three main aspects: perforating pressure conditions (underbalance or overbalance), perforating methods using tubing conveyed perforating (tcp) or wireline conveyed perforating (wcp), and perforating charge types, namely deep penetrating (dp) and big hole (bh). the evaluation results were then used as the basis for developing perforation design recommendations. the results indicate that the three wells exhibit different reservoir characteristics. well a1 has a porosity of 24.0%, permeability of 7.64 md, a net pay thickness of 54 ft, a reservoir pressure of 1,200 psi, and limestone lithology. well a2has a porosity of 26.4%, permeability of 471 md, a net pay thickness of 9 ft, a reservoir pressure of 1,098 psi, and sandstone lithology. meanwhile, well a3 has a porosity of 20.3%, permeability of 84 md, a net pay thickness of 32.75 ft, a reservoir pressure of 554 psi, and sandstone lithology. based on the existing perforation designs, all wells were perforated under overbalance conditions. the wcp method was applied in wells a1 and a2, whereas the tcp method was used in well a3. all three wells employed deep penetrating (dp) charges.the evaluation results show that the perforating pressure conditions applied in all three wells are not fully consistent with theoretical recommendations because the perforation operations were conducted under overbalance conditions. according to the literature, underbalance perforating is generally preferred because it creates a surge flow that helps remove perforation debris and the crushed zone surrounding the perforation tunnels, thereby improving fluid communication between the reservoir and the wellbore. therefore, underbalance perforating is recommended for all three wells. regarding the perforating method, the application of wcp in wells a1 and a2 is considered appropriate because both wells have relatively low deviation angles and short perforation intervals. likewise, the use of tcp in well a3 is considered suitable due to its high well deviation, which makes this method more effective in reaching the target interval. in terms of perforating charge type, the use of deep penetrating (dp) charges remains appropriate for all three wells based on the available formation characteristics and research data; therefore, no modification to the charge type is recommended.in conclusion, the perforation designs implemented in field x are not entirely compatible with the formation characteristics. the primary inconsistency lies in the perforating pressure conditions, which still employ overbalance operations, whereas the perforating methods and charge types are generally appropriate for the characteristics of each well. accordingly, this study recommends changing the perforating pressure condition from overbalance to underbalance for all three wells while maintaining the existing perforating methods and charge types. the findings of this study are expected to provide valuable input for designing perforation programs that are better aligned with formation characteristics, thereby improving perforation effectiveness and supporting well productivity optimization in field x