Fable — the Astra run now carries the Fields step and its new composed cut.

Run page: https://wiki.adom.inc/adom/adom-aiflow/files/docs/runs/source-unplaced-codex-astra-20260914-0314/README.md Run directory: /home/adom/aiflow-esc-astra (local Hydrogen WSL workspace on AdomLapper; not a cloud container).

Fields clip, fields-1:

• Raw /home/adom/aiflow-esc-astra/window-22154436-20260915-155453.mp4 — 60.2 s.
• 10x /home/adom/aiflow-esc-astra/window-22154436-20260915-155453-10x.mp4 — 6.1 s.
• Action /home/adom/aiflow-esc-astra/window-22154436-20260915-155453-action.mp4 — 45.7 s.
• Filmed the Adom Fields Pup window on AdomLapper in the background. Contact sheet inspected: actual Astra copper, heat and temperature; two issue views are edge-on and reported as a camera defect.

Final /home/adom/aiflow-esc-astra/final.mp4 — 114.6 s, 7,590,054 bytes. Published final-20260915155855.mp4. Actual Hydrogen Webview playback tested at the Fields segment: time advanced 100.000343 to 102.160155 s, readyState 4, zero dropped frames, no media error. Three prior independent drawings remain in the cut.

The original prompt, finish and deliver stamps are unchanged. The Fields prompt/done session is 15:52:02Z to 15:56:42Z, 4.7 AI minutes; composition, review and publication after the requested done remain counted as follow-up activity.

Givebacks for this addition:

• https://wiki.adom.inc/adom/adom-fields/issues/1 — omitted +12V current-neck warning
• https://wiki.adom.inc/adom/adom-fields/issues/2 — unrelated-net via counts
• https://wiki.adom.inc/adom/adom-fields/issues/3 — edge-on issue camera
• https://wiki.adom.inc/adom/adom-aiflow/issues/14 — fields-only capture ownership errors No maintainer reply was available at the last check; no shared bridge was restarted.

Astra: Adom Fields review

Saved filled board: /home/adom/aiflow-esc-astra/final-native/esc-g431-astra.kicad_pcb; unchanged spec: /home/adom/aiflow-esc-astra/spec.json. Fields 0.1.1, pitch 0.2 mm, seven loaded nets and seven hot parts.

Peak density 648 A/mm². Peak board rise +110.51°C still, +66.53°C moving. Tab input 4.1 W plus 2.477 W Joule heat. Hottest tab Q6: +101.8°C still and +56.8°C moving. The +60°C tab budget fails in still air. These are rises above ambient, not absolute temperature or junction temperature.

Each solver issue, verbatim, and my answer

1. high current-neck — +VBAT: 177 A/mm² at its worst point on B.Cu (20 A through a neck about 3.22 mm wide at 35 µm)

A credible supply-distribution warning. I would widen the identified B.Cu branch and provide parallel copper with appropriately placed same-net vias, then re-solve. The density is a 0.2 mm mesh result under automatic pad-area terminal sharing, not a measured ampacity; the quoted neck width is an equivalent I/(J*t), not a geometric cross-section measurement.

2. medium current-neck — /DRV_SHA: 74 A/mm² at its worst point on F.Cu (20 A through a neck about 7.71 mm wide at 35 µm)

Above the screening threshold, but this phase has distinct switching states. I would solve connector-to-high-side and connector-to-low-side cases separately before sizing a wider tab-to-phase path. The density is a 0.2 mm mesh result under automatic pad-area terminal sharing, not a measured ampacity; the quoted neck width is an equivalent I/(J*t), not a geometric cross-section measurement.

3. medium current-neck — /DRV_SHB: 96 A/mm² at its worst point on F.Cu (20 A through a neck about 5.96 mm wide at 35 µm)

A phase-path warning worth checking at the named location. I would widen the local path and evaluate each switching conduction state separately. The density is a 0.2 mm mesh result under automatic pad-area terminal sharing, not a measured ampacity; the quoted neck width is an equivalent I/(J*t), not a geometric cross-section measurement.

4. high current-neck — /DRV_SHC: 361 A/mm² at its worst point on B.Cu (20 A through a neck about 1.58 mm wide at 35 µm)

A high-priority phase C bottleneck. I would widen the B.Cu branch and improve same-net interlayer sharing, checking both high-side and low-side conduction cases. The density is a 0.2 mm mesh result under automatic pad-area terminal sharing, not a measured ampacity; the quoted neck width is an equivalent I/(J*t), not a geometric cross-section measurement.

5. high current-neck — GND_OUT: 648 A/mm² at its worst point on F.Cu (20 A through a neck about 0.88 mm wide at 35 µm)

Highest-priority return-path review. The native copper has a restricted route toward the shunt. I would widen and shorten the connector-to-shunt return, preserving the Kelvin sense pair and avoiding a power bypass around the shunt. The density is a 0.2 mm mesh result under automatic pad-area terminal sharing, not a measured ampacity; the quoted neck width is an equivalent I/(J*t), not a geometric cross-section measurement.

6. medium tab-rise — Q1: +89 °C at its tab in still air (+46 °C in moving air) against a 60 °C budget

A real failure of the stated still-air screen, not a measured tab or junction temperature. This Fields solve puts this tab below +60 C in moving air, but its whole-board peak remains +66.5 C. I would increase connected spreading copper and thermal-via provision, then evaluate realistic airflow or a heatsink. I would not claim qualification from this result: the previous independent solve used the actual thinner inner copper and different terminal loading and exceeded the tab budget even with moving air.

7. medium thermal-vias — Q1: 3 via(s) within 3 mm of its tab, the spec asks for 4

Real under the stated 3 mm same-net counting rule: independent filled-board parsing confirms 3 connected-net vias. I would add or move same-net thermal vias toward the tab to meet four, and verify copper connectivity and manufacturability. A via-count pass alone would not establish thermal adequacy.

8. medium tab-rise — Q2: +89 °C at its tab in still air (+46 °C in moving air) against a 60 °C budget

A real failure of the stated still-air screen, not a measured tab or junction temperature. This Fields solve puts this tab below +60 C in moving air, but its whole-board peak remains +66.5 C. I would increase connected spreading copper and thermal-via provision, then evaluate realistic airflow or a heatsink. I would not claim qualification from this result: the previous independent solve used the actual thinner inner copper and different terminal loading and exceeded the tab budget even with moving air.

9. medium thermal-vias — Q2: 1 via(s) within 3 mm of its tab, the spec asks for 4

Real under the stated 3 mm same-net counting rule: independent filled-board parsing confirms 1 connected-net vias. I would add or move same-net thermal vias toward the tab to meet four, and verify copper connectivity and manufacturability. A via-count pass alone would not establish thermal adequacy.

10. medium tab-rise — Q3: +100 °C at its tab in still air (+55 °C in moving air) against a 60 °C budget

A real failure of the stated still-air screen, not a measured tab or junction temperature. This Fields solve puts this tab below +60 C in moving air, but its whole-board peak remains +66.5 C. I would increase connected spreading copper and thermal-via provision, then evaluate realistic airflow or a heatsink. I would not claim qualification from this result: the previous independent solve used the actual thinner inner copper and different terminal loading and exceeded the tab budget even with moving air.

11. medium tab-rise — Q4: +97 °C at its tab in still air (+53 °C in moving air) against a 60 °C budget

A real failure of the stated still-air screen, not a measured tab or junction temperature. This Fields solve puts this tab below +60 C in moving air, but its whole-board peak remains +66.5 C. I would increase connected spreading copper and thermal-via provision, then evaluate realistic airflow or a heatsink. I would not claim qualification from this result: the previous independent solve used the actual thinner inner copper and different terminal loading and exceeded the tab budget even with moving air.

12. medium thermal-vias — Q4: 3 via(s) within 3 mm of its tab, the spec asks for 4

Real under the stated 3 mm same-net counting rule: independent filled-board parsing confirms 3 connected-net vias. I would add or move same-net thermal vias toward the tab to meet four, and verify copper connectivity and manufacturability. A via-count pass alone would not establish thermal adequacy.

13. medium tab-rise — Q5: +98 °C at its tab in still air (+53 °C in moving air) against a 60 °C budget

A real failure of the stated still-air screen, not a measured tab or junction temperature. This Fields solve puts this tab below +60 C in moving air, but its whole-board peak remains +66.5 C. I would increase connected spreading copper and thermal-via provision, then evaluate realistic airflow or a heatsink. I would not claim qualification from this result: the previous independent solve used the actual thinner inner copper and different terminal loading and exceeded the tab budget even with moving air.

14. medium tab-rise — Q6: +102 °C at its tab in still air (+57 °C in moving air) against a 60 °C budget

A real failure of the stated still-air screen, not a measured tab or junction temperature. This Fields solve puts this tab below +60 C in moving air, but its whole-board peak remains +66.5 C. I would increase connected spreading copper and thermal-via provision, then evaluate realistic airflow or a heatsink. I would not claim qualification from this result: the previous independent solve used the actual thinner inner copper and different terminal loading and exceeded the tab budget even with moving air.

15. medium tab-rise — U1: +96 °C at its tab in still air (+52 °C in moving air) against a 60 °C budget

A real failure of the stated still-air screen, not a measured tab or junction temperature. This Fields solve puts this tab below +60 C in moving air, but its whole-board peak remains +66.5 C. I would increase connected spreading copper and thermal-via provision, then evaluate realistic airflow or a heatsink. I would not claim qualification from this result: the previous independent solve used the actual thinner inner copper and different terminal loading and exceeded the tab budget even with moving air.

Assumptions and solver findings

• Fields uses 35 µm on all four copper layers; the native stack has 35/15.2/15.2/35 µm. Default dielectric spacing is also used because the spec has no stackupMm. This differs from the earlier independent solve and can overstate inner-layer conduction.
• Source/sink terminals are inferred from reference names and pad areas. This is not a switching-state model of the motor bridge; equal 20 A phase cases and their combined Joule heat are a prescribed stress screen, not a reconstructed time-dependent motor operating point.
• The fixed 60 A/mm² flag is a triage threshold, not a universal IPC current rating. Local peaks depend on mesh and terminal injection. Refine the mesh and compare integrated voltage drop/power as well as point peaks.
• Fixed convection is 10/25 W/m²K on the two faces, without enclosure, heatsink or radiation; prescribed tab watts omit a device operating-point calculation. Do not interpret forced-air tab passes as a design qualification.
• +12V reaches 124.1 A/mm² at (138.5,82.9) B.Cu but is absent from current-neck issues. I reported this separately and would inspect that supply branch too.
• U1 has no +VBAT via within 3 mm; the four reported nearby vias are two GND and two +12V. They can conduct heat indirectly but do not constitute connected +VBAT tab vias. Q3 has four same-net vias, although Fields counts five nearby.

The board was not changed in this follow-up. The changes above are proposed design work requiring re-routing, native refill/DRC, and another electrical/thermal review.

Sessions (verbatim)

OK: 6 session(s), 165.6 min of AI time in all; idle threshold 15 min Hint: A session without a done ends at its last event; say done when an answer is complete so nothing idle is charged.

fields.json

fields-review.md

fields-independent-check.json

fields-sessions.txt