Dynamic shape flood spacing

The gap in your dynamic shape? 

But, that is very short in length and cannot radiate.  I'm going to guess, it is on an internal layer and you cover it when you flood the surface layers.   

In my experience, the board still passes EMC.

it's not a EMI issue, it's a fabrication issue. I realize it's same net, but I still get grief from my DFM guy and the fab house. 

OK - Try adjusting your Min aperture for artwork fill (Global Dynamic Params) and see if that stops this type of issue being generated in the first place.

Do they consider this an acid trap?   

I'll shorten my first answer then. 

The new DFM antenna checks in 17.4 seem to work with traces and vias but not dynamic shapes.

I have gap width set to 6 mil. I can change it to 10 mil and that particular one goes away, but others pop up.

(oh yeah, Steve mentioned this) There is a setting under Shape> Global Dynamic Shape Parameters> Void Controls tab

"Minimum aperture for gap width".  Basically manages the smallest aperture used to generate dynamic shapes.

we have our min aperture set to 3.499 and do all our planes as positives. Might muck with your Acute angle trim control. One thing that I always

thought that the tool should have is Creating pin voids In-line if you selected a group of pins or vias not for an entire shape. It would be good for BGA's

and connectors.

we have our min aperture set to 3.499 and do all our planes as positives. Might muck with your Acute angle trim control. One thing that I always

thought that the tool should have is Creating pin voids In-line if you selected a group of pins or vias not for an entire shape. It would be good for BGA's

and connectors.

Well, Allegro has a DRC (reference plane continuity) to catch plane gaps adjacent to traces.. 

This is the fight between fab QA and EMC/EE engineers.  Reference plane gaps at some point lead to bit-error rates going up.

Still don't understand why this is considered an acid trap without an acute angle.

not an acid trap, just not manufacturable. If they fab as-is the gap will not be there or with such small gaps the resist could come off and cause issues elsewhere. Plus we've beat our fabricators up so much that they are afraid to make any decisions without our approval. 

My condolences as you could have this dialed in, but fabricators have varying etch aggressiveness as a chemical process.  Add electroplating to this layer and... 

Aerospace?   Usually you have lower risk with a slightly bigger copper gap.    Have to ask, what industry would spend time on this?

Exactly. And who else would have the money to spend time on this? LOL