You’re right to challenge that claim. I need to reopen the Linear issue and the Stewart CT520012 mechanical drawing, then verify each B1–B12 and mid-plate GND position against the drawing’s pad/hole callouts. That requires live research access in Agent mode; I won’t treat the quoted statement as valid until it is reverified.

I’ll re-check the Linear report, the CT520012 drawing’s recommended PCB layout and legends, and the actual Flux pad definitions before stating a correction.

I’m comparing the drawing’s symbol legend and callout leaders—not just the apparent circles—because that is where the earlier interpretation likely failed.

You’re correct—the Linear claim is false.

The Flux footprint source explicitly defines B1–B12 plus G1/G2 as:

The inspection incorrectly treated the rendered child-pad data—which omitted inherited drill fields—as the footprint source of truth. No footprint defect is established, and FLUX-13721 should be corrected or closed. Sorry for the false report.