A DFM checklist is useful when a reviewer can locate the input, identify the person responsible for the decision and record what remains open. Use the 12 checks below before material commitment and build release. Assign the proposed roles to actual project owners; the table does not grant approval authority or replace the agreed engineering review.
Define one release package
Give the package an identifier and list the PCB, BOM, placement, assembly drawing, firmware and test revisions it contains. Mark drafts and missing inputs. When files disagree, record the conflict instead of selecting whichever version is easiest to process. The revision-control guide explains the records to keep together.
Review the 12 checks
| Check | Input and proposed review owner | Evidence to close the item |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Part and polarity identity | BOM, placement and assembly drawing; design/assembly engineering. | Fitted references, package identity, orientation and polarity agree, or a specific discrepancy has an approved disposition. |
| 2. Test access | Layout and proposed test strategy; design and test engineering. | Required nodes/interfaces are identified; access limitations and the agreed coverage are documented. |
| 3. Connector and tooling clearance | Layout, connector drawing and assembly method; mechanical/assembly engineering. | Mating, fixture and tool access are reviewed for the actual assembly sequence. |
| 4. Material and alternate approval | Exact MPNs, lifecycle/sourcing information and substitution rules; sourcing plus design approval owner. | Unresolved supply items, no-substitute parts and alternate approval conditions are visible. |
| 5. Stack-up and critical dimensions | Fabrication specification and mechanical constraints; PCB/mechanical design owner. | Required dimensions, interfaces and tolerances have a controlled source. |
| 6. Fabrication requirements | Material, thickness, copper, finish and impedance requirements where applicable; PCB design and fabrication review. | Specification gaps and proposed deviations are resolved before fabrication release. |
| 7. Panel and separation method | Panel proposal, rails, fiducials, support and separation plan; assembly/mechanical engineering. | Approved panel revision and the checks needed for handling, assembly and separation are recorded. |
| 8. Stencil and paste exceptions | Land patterns, component guidance and proposed printing approach; assembly process engineering. | Special requirements and the method for verifying the proposed process are agreed. |
| 9. Height and enclosure interfaces | Component heights, courtyards, enclosure and thermal interfaces; mechanical/design owner. | Clearance and access findings are tied to the reviewed configuration, with open items assigned. |
| 10. Firmware and serialization | Image identity, variant, programming method and identifier rules; firmware/test owner. | Approved files, custody responsibilities and verification records are defined. |
| 11. Acceptance and records | Customer/product requirements and inspection/test plan; quality owner. | Applicable criteria, required evidence and disposition authority are identified. |
| 12. Final revision reconciliation | Complete package and change log; release owner. | All files match the release identifier; exceptions state scope, approval and affected build. |
Use evidence references instead of an unexplained tick
For each row, record the reviewer, review date, source revision, evidence location and status. “Open” should name an action and owner. “Not applicable” should include a reason. An empty input is not a passed check.
For example, if the BOM quantity and fitted placement references disagree, retain the two input files and the discrepancy record. The synthetic BOM and placement consistency experiment provides reproducible examples and explains the limits of automated comparisons. A successful comparison does not confirm the designer's intended assembly.
Escalate conflicts before work proceeds
If a component's polarity mark conflicts with the drawing, identify the affected reference and package revision, preserve the evidence and obtain the required engineering disposition. The polarity-conflict first-article example shows why the remaining units need a defined release decision.
For material questions, use the component lifecycle review workflow to record the source and date of the information alongside approval status. For interfaces beyond the board, continue with the box-build DFM interface checklist.
Carry the findings into the first build
Make the approved drawing corrections, material decisions and verification requirements available to the first-article review. Close each item with its actual evidence, not a planned future action. If the configuration changes after review, identify which checklist rows need to be reviewed again before releasing the affected build.