A bare-board comparison needs an explicit interpretation of pads that have no assigned connection. Some are intentional isolated features; others reflect incomplete design data. Excluding them without review can hide a useful comparison point, while including them without context can produce confusing reports.
Separate physical isolation from incomplete intent
Identify isolated mounting lands, unused connector pads, test features, and any pad whose net assignment is unexpectedly blank. Compare these against the released schematic and fabrication intent. A no-connect decision on a component pin is not permission to ignore arbitrary copper attached to its footprint.
KiCad 10’s IPC-D-356 exporter documents an option to omit pads with no net connection. Use version-specific documentation because the available exporter controls can differ from earlier releases.
Agree on the comparison input
| Case | Review action |
|---|---|
| Intentionally isolated conductive land | State whether it should participate in isolation checks. |
| Unused component pin | Confirm schematic intent and physical copper connectivity. |
| Blank net caused by a transfer error | Correct the design before exporting manufacturing data. |
| Nonconductive mechanical feature | Confirm that the netlist is not being asked to represent the wrong object type. |
Discuss the expected treatment with the fabricator’s comparison workflow. The CAD-to-Gerber netlist review should distinguish a deliberate isolated object from a missing connection. Do not suppress all differences merely because the number of warnings becomes inconvenient.
Review a small, known example
For example, a connector includes one reserved pad that must remain isolated from nearby copper. Exporting only connected nets may omit that pad from a particular supplied comparison input. Whether another check still covers it depends on the fabricator’s method. Make that coverage explicit rather than assuming the presence of a netlist proves all isolation requirements.
Use a representative isolated pad and a known connected pad to verify interpretation in the receiving tool. Keep pad identity, coordinates, and expected connectivity available for that review. If an NC or reserved-pin instruction is uncertain, resolve it through the component-pin requirement review.
Archive the export setting and agreed comparison scope with the release. A clean comparison result is meaningful only relative to the objects included and the connectivity expectations supplied. It cannot resolve missing design intent after the fact.
Move from reading to a build-ready project
Use the fabrication and assembly checklists to prepare drawings, production files and test requirements.
Open the DFM checklist