Design review ·
What engineer review checks before PCB fabrication
Understand electrical review, manufacturing checks and approval records, with an illustrative PCB review log that separates open issues from evidence.
Engineer review should leave you with decisions you can inspect: what was checked, which revision was examined, what needs to change and what remains outside the review. A statement that a PCB is “reviewed” is less useful than a record tied to your requirements and manufacturing files.
An AI-generated schematic or layout is a draft. Before fabrication, a person needs to resolve assumptions about the power source, connected devices, mechanical fit and intended behavior. A plausible drawing does not establish those facts.
Automated checks have a defined scope
Electrical rules checking, or ERC, looks for specified schematic problems. KiCad's schematic documentation describes checks for issues including unconnected pins and conflicting connections. It also explains that pin electrical types affect the results. Source checked: 2026-10-19.
Design rules checking, or DRC, evaluates the board against configured constraints. KiCad's PCB documentation includes clearance, connection and schematic-parity checks. Source checked: 2026-10-19.
These checks are useful evidence about the design data. They do not show that a fabricated board powers up, that firmware works or that the product meets a customer's use case. Keep automated reports, human review notes and physical test results separate.
Ask for decisions in five areas
Requirements: confirm the input-voltage range, expected loads, interfaces and excluded functions. An unknown current requirement should stay open until someone supplies a usable value.
Electrical choices: examine component ratings, pin mapping, power sequencing, reset behavior and programming access against the selected parts' documentation. Ask the reviewer to identify assumptions that depend on your external hardware.
Layout and mechanics: check footprints, connector orientation, mounting constraints and access to test points. Provide the actual mating connector or drawing when orientation is easy to misinterpret.
Manufacturing: review the proposed stackup, assembly sides, part availability and fabrication constraints with the intended process in mind. A replacement component needs approval when it changes the circuit, footprint or firmware behavior.
Testability: connect each acceptance requirement to a procedure, firmware version and accessible connection. If a function cannot be exercised with the planned setup, resolve that before the board is made.
Illustrative review record: a sensor carrier
The following entries demonstrate how to document findings. They are invented examples, not an actual Ohmbo review or a claim that these corrections have been completed.
| Item | Illustrative finding | Evidence needed to close it |
|---|---|---|
| R-01: input power | Brief specifies a nominal supply but no minimum or maximum | Customer-approved supply range and matching component-rating review |
| R-02: connector | Drawing does not identify the mating-side view | Confirmed pin map and orientation drawing |
| R-03: programming | Proposed enclosure covers the programming pads | Updated access plan and layout revision |
| R-04: acceptance | “Sensor works” has no measurable definition | Written stimulus, expected response and limits |
All four entries remain open in this example. A complete record would add the design revision, reviewer, date, responsible person, disposition and evidence reference. An accepted exception should explain its consequences rather than disappear from the report.
Approval should identify what will be built
Before approval, read the written review report and confirm the corrected design and BOM. Ohmbo's current Proto Kit scope includes up to two review rounds; confirm what constitutes a round and how changes to the original brief are handled in your order. The process page explains the stages, and pricing defines the package boundary.
The $149 package applies to eligible two-layer prototypes. Four- and six-layer designs require manual engineer review and a separate quote. A review recommendation to add layers is a quotation decision, not an included upgrade.
Engineer approval starts the stated 10–15-working-day shipment window; courier transit is additional. Approval is not a physical test result. After assembly, each board still needs the agreed test plan and individual report before its functional status can be established.