For me it seems a little stupid to set pad dimension to 5,59mm. I think someone there (at Wurth) got the task to rewrite recommended footprint from mils to mm (220mils = 5,588mm).
I suppose the author of original didn’t even considered 215 so consiedered 210/220/230 so the step of 0,25mm and now someone writes it with 0.01mm precision
I would do that footprint in KiCad and certainly this dimension in my footprint would be 5.6mm.
I like that from Wurth I can get 3D models of used elements.
All the measurements look a bit “weird” (such as for example 10.51mm)
After thinking about it for a bit. It may have been that the footprint was drawn from a photograph of a part and there was simply no effort whatsowever to “round” the numbers, and just left to whatever dimension was first drawn with the mouse.