You are correct—the footprint dimensions authored in the KiCad footprint are right.
Pads: 1.00 × 1.00 mm
X centers: ±0.925 mm → 1.85 mm pitch (1.00 mm pad + 0.85 mm gap)
Y centers: ±0.625 mm → 1.25 mm pitch (1.00 mm pad + 0.25 mm gap)
These match the datasheet’s recommended land pattern. My earlier statement that the footprint dimensions were incorrect was wrong.
The actual issue is Flux’s computed pad nodes showing the imported dimensions at 0.001× scale—for example, a 1.00 mm pad is reported as 0.001 mm—despite the source footprint containing the correct millimeter values. Separately, the pin assignments still appear swapped: the datasheet drawing indicates pin 4 is common anode and pin 2 is green cathode, while the current terminals identify them oppositely.
I reviewed the datasheet, and my footprint dimensions are correct. Please carefully check the datasheet again and confirm if this is right. correct if necessary
I’ll verify the current pin labels and footprint after your latest edit, then correct only the remaining datasheet mismatches while preserving the footprint geometry.
Confirmed: your footprint is correct and needs no geometry changes.
Four 1.00 × 1.00 mm pads
Pad centers at X = ±0.925 mm, matching the 0.85 mm horizontal gap
Pad centers at Y = ±0.625 mm, matching the 0.25 mm vertical gap
Pin mapping is also now correct: 1 blue cathode, 2 common anode, 3 red cathode, 4 green cathode
The apparent 0.001 mm pad sizes are a Flux readback/unit-scaling artifact, not an error in your embedded KiCad footprint. I made no footprint changes; the renamed pin 2 label ANODE is appropriate.