C553 — Too Close to Board Edge
The chip was 2.51 mm from the board outline against a 3.0 mm process limit.
Category: Component LayoutRisk: Depanel and handling stressAction: Review position against edge limit
Home / Resources / Sample DFM Report
Manufacturing risk documented before production
See What a DFM Report Finds Before Production
This anonymized 12-layer control-board sample records the affected component, measured value, manufacturing risk and recommended correction for each finding.
279 ChecksReview items recorded12 CategoriesManufacturing conditions3 ViolationsExceptions documented24h ReviewTypical report route
DFM analysis evidenceANONYMIZED SAMPLE
Real sample overview
279 Checks. Three Violations. Four Components Named.
Most items passed. The value of the review was in the small number of exceptions that could otherwise move into fabrication and assembly exactly as drawn.
279review items checked
276passed items
3rule violations
4 Hotcomponent flags
| Board | 12-layer control board, 2.296 mm thickness |
|---|---|
| Dimensions | 254 × 406 mm |
| Assembly | 304 SMD parts and 41 through-hole parts |
| BGA details | Four BGAs, 0.5 mm minimum BGA pitch |
| Data check | 100% part-number and reference-designator match before review |
| Report identity | PCB-009238, anonymized for public display |
Named findings
A Useful Report Points Your Layout Engineer to the Exact Problem.
These documented sample findings show the level of specificity used to move from “there may be a risk” to an actionable correction.
Q42 — Pin Heel Beyond Pad
The LFPAK56 MOSFET footprint did not fully support the pin heel.
Category: Graphics LibraryActual: −0.08 mm pad coverageRisk: Poor or inconsistent solder joint
R108 — Footprint Mismatch
The 2512 current-sense resistor footprint showed pin heel beyond pad.
Category: Graphics LibraryActual: −0.34 mm pad coverageRisk: Reliability concern on a current path
D25 — Pin Toe Beyond Pad
The SOD-123 diode footprint showed a small but documented toe overrun.
Category: Graphics LibraryActual: −0.02 mm pad coverageRisk: Designed-in weak joint
What the report contains
Evidence Your Design Team Can Act On.
Each record is structured to shorten the path from finding a risk to correcting the source file.
Reference designatorThe exact component, board side and linked issue.
XY coordinatesA precise location for the layout engineer.
Captured evidenceAn image of the pad, pin, clearance or assembly geometry.
Standard vs actualThe process limit and measured value shown together.
Package dataMPN, package and footprint information when relevant.
Recommended correctionAn actionable next step with issue priority.
Engineering difference
CAD DRC Checks Your Rules. DFM Checks Factory Reality.
EBest PCBA reviews manufacturing, assembly and inspection conditions in addition to the checks already completed in your CAD system.
Decision pointCAD DRCEBest PCBA DFM Review
Checks against
Rules configured in the design tool.
Factory process limits, footprint geometry and assembly conditions.
Library errors
May pass when the source library itself is wrong.
Pin-to-pad geometry is checked and named with evidence.
Output
Pass/fail rule messages.
RefDes, coordinates, captured evidence, standard vs actual and recommended correction.
Engineer-run review
Engineers Review and Explain Each DFM Exception
Files move through engineering before production.
The report is intended for practical design decisions. Questions are connected with PCB fabrication, PCBA assembly, inspection and the requested production route when those conditions affect the board.
Named ownershipFindings are recorded against the affected design data.
Manufacturing contextProcess limits are considered before release.
Actionable responseDesign teams receive a correction path, not a vague warning.
NDA firstConfidentiality can be agreed before files are exchanged.
Review process
From Your Files to a Report in Five Visible Steps.
Typical boards are documented as a 24-hour review process. Large, dense or incomplete projects may require a confirmed schedule after input checking.
Request a mutual NDA before sending Gerber, ODB++, BOM or drawings.
Gerber or ODB++ plus a BOM with manufacturer part numbers can start the review.
Missing or conflicting information is identified before the review proceeds.
PCB, assembly and test-readiness conditions are checked against the project.
Findings, evidence and recommended corrections are sent back for action.
Start with evidence
Send the Board. See the Risk Before the Line Does.
Email Gerber or ODB++ and BOM files for an engineering-led DFM review. Request an NDA before file exchange when required.
DFM report FAQ
Questions Before Sending Production Files.
Is the DFM review free?
Yes. The current DFM service includes the review, report and recommended fixes at no charge, with no obligation to place a production order. Confirm any project-specific scope when sending files.
How long does the review take?
Typical boards are described as a 24-hour review. Large, dense or incomplete projects may take longer, and the schedule should be confirmed after the files are checked.
Can EBest PCBA sign an NDA first?
Yes. Request an NDA before sending Gerber, ODB++, BOM, drawings or other confidential project information.
What will the report identify?
The documented sample includes named components, issue categories, measured or actual values, manufacturing risk and the correction direction.
Do I have to place a production order?
No. The DFM report remains with you even if the board is built elsewhere.