그리고 Flux의 export는 데이터 포터빌리티/제조 중심 기능으로 안내되며, 협업은 보통 Flux 내부 공유를 권장합니다. 또한 현재 export 도구 안내상 내보내기 형식들은 PCB layout data 기준으로 생성되며 schematic export는 포함되지 않습니다
즉, 지금 보신 것처럼 결선이나 컴포넌트 정보가 없는 이유는 Flux에서 회로도 PDF export 자체를 지원하지 않기 때문입니다.
이전 답변은 제가 잘못 안내했습니다.
This document provides a filled example evaluation using the checklist in Connector Candidate Spec Checklist. It is intended to show how three connector approaches could be compared for the internal CAN-based link between the real-time board and the upper control board.
Project Assumptions
Internal board-to-board interconnect inside the EV charger
Preferred CAN-oriented allocation with:
24 V distributed across 2 parallel pins
6 GND pins total in the full option
adjacent CAN_H / CAN_L placement
CAN-adjacent GND for improved return path and EMI behavior
optional status and debug pins
Connector target size: around 30 positions for the full option, with reduced-population variants acceptable if the chosen family supports the same pin-field concept
Retention and assembly reliability matter more than absolute miniaturization
Candidate Set Used in This Example
Table
Candidate
Type
Example Positioning
Candidate A
Fine-pitch mezzanine board-to-board
Compact and clean, but higher assembly sensitivity
Candidate B
Mid-pitch locking board-to-board
Balanced electrical, mechanical, and assembly fit
Candidate C
Wire-to-board harness connector
Strong serviceability, but weaker density and routing efficiency
Candidate A Evaluation
Candidate Header
Candidate name: Candidate A
Manufacturer: Example
Series / family: Fine-pitch mezzanine B2B
MPN: Example-A
Mating part MPN: Example-A-Mate
Lifecycle status: Active
Package / mounting style: SMT mezzanine
Board orientation: Parallel board stack
Stack height / cable style: Low-profile stack
Evaluation owner: Hardware
Revision / date: Rev A / 2026-04-13
A. Electrical Fit
Pin count fit: PASS
Power pin strategy: PASS
Ground pin strategy: PASS
CAN_H / CAN_L adjacency: PASS
CAN-adjacent grounds: PASS
Current rating per power pin: MARGINAL but acceptable with parallel pin strategy
Voltage rating: PASS
Contact resistance: PASS
Isolation / mixed-use suitability: PASS
B. Signal Integrity / EMC Fit
Differential pair friendliness: GOOD
Stub control: GOOD
Return path support: GOOD
Power/signal crossover pressure: MEDIUM
Shield / bond support: LIMITED
EMC red flags: Low to medium risk due to compact pitch and routing density
C. Mechanical Fit
Orientation fit: PASS
Height fit: PASS
Area fit: PASS
Retention strength: MARGINAL
Coplanarity sensitivity: HIGH
Mating robustness: MEDIUM
Polarization: PASS
D. Manufacturing / Assembly Fit
Assembly flow compatibility: PASS
Fine-pitch assembly risk: HIGH
Inspection accessibility: MARGINAL
Rework difficulty: HIGH
Final mating practicality: MEDIUM
Yield risk: MEDIUM to HIGH
E. Service / Bring-up Fit
Debug friendliness: MEDIUM
Disconnect / reconnect ease: MEDIUM
Mis-mating risk: LOW
Pin-1 clarity: PASS
F. Sourcing / Commercial Fit
Lifecycle: PASS
Lead time: MEDIUM RISK
Prototype cost: HIGH
Production cost: MEDIUM to HIGH
Alternate path: LIMITED
Supply visibility: MEDIUM
G. System-Specific Checks
24 V parallel pins: PASS
6 GND allocation: PASS
CAN pair adjacency: PASS
CAN-adjacent grounds: PASS
Optional status pins: PASS
Optional debug UART: PASS
Optional shield/bond pin: MARGINAL
H. Hard-Gate Summary
Pin count: PASS
Power / ground allocation: PASS
CAN placement: PASS
Mechanical fit: PASS
Assembly risk: CONDITIONAL PASS
Lead time: CONDITIONAL PASS
Lifecycle: PASS
I. Quantitative Snapshot
Table
Item
Value
Total pins
30
Usable signal pins after power/ground allocation
Moderate
Power current margin
Acceptable with parallel pins
Pitch
Fine
Mated height
Low
Locking feature
Weak to moderate
Prototype cost
High
Production cost
Medium to high
Lead time
Medium risk
J. Risk Log
Table
Risk
Severity
Likelihood
Mitigation
Owner
Fine-pitch assembly sensitivity
High
Medium
Confirm assembler capability and stencil process
HW
Rework difficulty
High
Medium
Limit early revision changes and keep debug access elsewhere
HW
Retention margin
Medium
Medium
Review enclosure support or add mechanical support
ME
K. Decision Summary
Hard-gate result: PASS WITH CAUTION
Recommended use: Backup
Why this candidate is strong: Excellent density and good CAN pair organization in a compact footprint
Main concerns: Assembly difficulty, rework effort, and moderate retention margin
Required follow-up actions: Validate assembly process capability and connector retention in the mechanical stack
Candidate B Evaluation
Candidate Header
Candidate name: Candidate B
Manufacturer: Example
Series / family: Mid-pitch locking board-to-board
MPN: Example-B
Mating part MPN: Example-B-Mate
Lifecycle status: Active
Package / mounting style: SMT or hybrid locking B2B
Board orientation: Parallel board stack
Stack height / cable style: Medium stack
Evaluation owner: Hardware
Revision / date: Rev A / 2026-04-13
A. Electrical Fit
Pin count fit: PASS
Power pin strategy: PASS
Ground pin strategy: PASS
CAN_H / CAN_L adjacency: PASS
CAN-adjacent grounds: PASS
Current rating per power pin: PASS
Voltage rating: PASS
Contact resistance: PASS
Isolation / mixed-use suitability: PASS
B. Signal Integrity / EMC Fit
Differential pair friendliness: GOOD
Stub control: GOOD
Return path support: GOOD
Power/signal crossover pressure: LOW
Shield / bond support: GOOD
EMC red flags: LOW
C. Mechanical Fit
Orientation fit: PASS
Height fit: PASS
Area fit: PASS
Retention strength: GOOD
Coplanarity sensitivity: MEDIUM
Mating robustness: GOOD
Polarization: PASS
D. Manufacturing / Assembly Fit
Assembly flow compatibility: PASS
Fine-pitch assembly risk: LOW to MEDIUM
Inspection accessibility: GOOD
Rework difficulty: MEDIUM
Final mating practicality: GOOD
Yield risk: LOW to MEDIUM
E. Service / Bring-up Fit
Debug friendliness: GOOD
Disconnect / reconnect ease: GOOD
Mis-mating risk: LOW
Pin-1 clarity: PASS
F. Sourcing / Commercial Fit
Lifecycle: PASS
Lead time: MEDIUM
Prototype cost: MEDIUM
Production cost: MEDIUM
Alternate path: GOOD
Supply visibility: GOOD
G. System-Specific Checks
24 V parallel pins: PASS
6 GND allocation: PASS
CAN pair adjacency: PASS
CAN-adjacent grounds: PASS
Optional status pins: PASS
Optional debug UART: PASS
Optional shield/bond pin: PASS
H. Hard-Gate Summary
Pin count: PASS
Power / ground allocation: PASS
CAN placement: PASS
Mechanical fit: PASS
Assembly risk: PASS
Lead time: PASS
Lifecycle: PASS
I. Quantitative Snapshot
Table
Item
Value
Total pins
30
Usable signal pins after power/ground allocation
Good
Power current margin
Good
Pitch
Mid
Mated height
Medium
Locking feature
Strong
Prototype cost
Medium
Production cost
Medium
Lead time
Medium
J. Risk Log
Table
Risk
Severity
Likelihood
Mitigation
Owner
Connector height interaction with enclosure
Medium
Low
Confirm z-height budget against enclosure stack
ME
Medium lead-time variability
Medium
Medium
Identify alternate within same family early
SCM
K. Decision Summary
Hard-gate result: PASS
Recommended use: Primary
Why this candidate is strong: Best balance of CAN-friendly pin field, retention, manufacturability, serviceability, and sourcing resilience
Main concerns: Needs confirmation of final height and preferred sourcing lane
Required follow-up actions: Check exact stack height, shortlist 2-3 family members, and confirm assembler preference
Candidate C Evaluation
Candidate Header
Candidate name: Candidate C
Manufacturer: Example
Series / family: Wire-to-board harness connector
MPN: Example-C
Mating part MPN: Example-C-Mate
Lifecycle status: Active
Package / mounting style: Wire-to-board with crimp or discrete cable assembly
Board orientation: Cable-linked boards
Stack height / cable style: Harness
Evaluation owner: Hardware
Revision / date: Rev A / 2026-04-13
A. Electrical Fit
Pin count fit: PASS
Power pin strategy: PASS
Ground pin strategy: PASS
CAN_H / CAN_L adjacency: POSSIBLE but less elegant than board-to-board options
CAN-adjacent grounds: POSSIBLE with harness planning
Current rating per power pin: GOOD
Voltage rating: PASS
Contact resistance: PASS
Isolation / mixed-use suitability: PASS
B. Signal Integrity / EMC Fit
Differential pair friendliness: MEDIUM
Stub control: MEDIUM to WEAK
Return path support: MEDIUM
Power/signal crossover pressure: MEDIUM
Shield / bond support: MEDIUM
EMC red flags: More harness-dependent than board-to-board solutions
C. Mechanical Fit
Orientation fit: PASS if cable solution is allowed
Height fit: GOOD
Area fit: MEDIUM
Retention strength: GOOD
Coplanarity sensitivity: LOW
Mating robustness: GOOD
Polarization: PASS
D. Manufacturing / Assembly Fit
Assembly flow compatibility: MEDIUM
Fine-pitch assembly risk: LOW
Inspection accessibility: GOOD
Rework difficulty: LOW to MEDIUM
Final mating practicality: MEDIUM
Yield risk: MEDIUM due to harness handling
E. Service / Bring-up Fit
Debug friendliness: GOOD
Disconnect / reconnect ease: GOOD
Mis-mating risk: LOW
Pin-1 clarity: PASS
F. Sourcing / Commercial Fit
Lifecycle: PASS
Lead time: GOOD
Prototype cost: MEDIUM
Production cost: MEDIUM to HIGH because of harness content
Alternate path: GOOD
Supply visibility: GOOD
G. System-Specific Checks
24 V parallel pins: PASS
6 GND allocation: PASS
CAN pair adjacency: CONDITIONAL PASS
CAN-adjacent grounds: CONDITIONAL PASS
Optional status pins: PASS
Optional debug UART: PASS
Optional shield/bond pin: PASS
H. Hard-Gate Summary
Pin count: PASS
Power / ground allocation: PASS
CAN placement: CONDITIONAL PASS
Mechanical fit: PASS
Assembly risk: PASS
Lead time: PASS
Lifecycle: PASS
I. Quantitative Snapshot
Table
Item
Value
Total pins
30 equivalent possible
Usable signal pins after power/ground allocation
Good
Power current margin
Good
Pitch
Moderate to large
Mated height
Flexible
Locking feature
Strong
Prototype cost
Medium
Production cost
Medium to high
Lead time
Good
J. Risk Log
Table
Risk
Severity
Likelihood
Mitigation
Owner
Harness-induced EMC variation
Medium
Medium
Control pair routing and harness build rules
HW
Additional assembly step
Medium
Medium
Review assembly flow and test fixture impact
MFG
Cable management inside enclosure
Medium
Medium
Coordinate early with mechanical layout
ME
K. Decision Summary
Hard-gate result: PASS WITH CONDITIONS
Recommended use: Secondary backup
Why this candidate is strong: Robust and serviceable, with better tolerance to board placement variation
Main concerns: CAN/EMI performance is more harness-dependent and system packaging becomes more complex
Required follow-up actions: Validate enclosure routing path and CAN behavior with representative harness build
Comparative Ranking
Table
Rank
Candidate
Position
Why
1
Candidate B
Primary
Best overall balance across electrical, EMI, mechanical, assembly, and sourcing criteria
2
Candidate C
Backup
Strong mechanical and service fit, but less clean for CAN/EMI and packaging
3
Candidate A
Backup with caution
Strong density, but assembly and rework risk are higher than needed for this design stage
Overall Recommendation
Preferred direction: Mid-pitch locking board-to-board connector family
Backup direction: Wire-to-board harness if enclosure layout or service approach favors a cable link
Use fine-pitch mezzanine only if aggressive density becomes necessary and the assembly flow is proven early
Follow-up Checks Before Freezing Connector Choice
Confirm exact 24 V current allocation per pin and temperature rise margin
Confirm 30-position pin field still matches the latest CAN-oriented allocation
Confirm whether B2B_CAN_WAKE and B2B_CAN_STB_CTRL are needed or remain DNP options
Confirm connector height and keepout against enclosure constraints
Confirm assembler preference and rework capability
Confirm supply-chain status and alternate path for the chosen family