With errata round 1, Minor Magic now says, “Your key spellcasting ability is Charisma, and you’re trained in spell attack rolls and DCs for the tradition of your chosen cantrips.”
The opinion has been held by many players since launch that Minor Magic feels unfortunately badly off compared to any spellcaster class's multiclass archetype dedication, which is a feat of the same level but that grants the same number of cantrips in addition to the ability to use scrolls and wands of all spell levels, usually two trained skills, and the potential to later scale with feats to master spell proficiency and the ability to cast up to 8th-level spells from not only slots but staves.
Even taking into consideration multiclass archetypes' ability score prerequisites and special requirements that must be met taking a second archetype, I can't help but feel that these requirements seem like surprisingly disproportionately inexpensive costs for such great gain over Minor Magic, especially considering the great number of characters who would've already wanted a 14 or higher in their spellcasting ability regardless and/or characters who had no interest in taking a second archetype anyway.
I feel that giving Minor Magic one other advantage over multiclass dedication would be invaluable for game balance, the magical trickster's thematic strength, and making the feat feel good to players to take, and that there is a perfectly elegant way to do so: A future errata could change Minor Magic's spell proficiency to scale at the same rate as the character's rogue class DC, exactly as monk ki spell proficiency and champion devotion spell proficiency already do with characters' monk and champion class DC proficiency.
The feat is, after all, a rogue class feat, and a player should get to feel like their rogue isn't bad at doing rogue things, especially for making the choice to stay a full-blooded rogue rather than multiclass. Magical trickstering has been an iconic rogue thing for decades in D&D/PF and for centuries in many of the stories that inspire our games, and I feel that 19th-level master spell proficiency shouldn't step on full casters' toes too much if a "d10 Hit Die" class like monk can buy 17th-level master spell proficiency with only a 1st-level feat.
As an aside, of minor consequence to balance but merely a little confusing to me is the addition of Charisma's implication that all rogues' cantrips are somehow innate to them, rather than learned through study, as PF1 rogues' Intelligence-based Minor Magic and Major Magic spells were. I wonder if anyone other than me had been hoping that, since Minor Magic allows you to choose any tradition, the errata might turn out to allow you to choose any key ability for your spellcasting, as the Trick Magic Item feat does; after all, PF1's wealth of classes and archetypes allowed spellcasting of any of the four magical traditions to use any of the three mental abilities.
So, PF1 only gave prestidigitation to arcane casters (and the psychic I guess), so it only makes sense that arcane casters can do more stuff with the Playtest's prestidigitation than non-arcane casters can; and though this unfortunately means that bard can do less stuff after being recategorized from arcane to occult, I do like how much sense it makes that divine and occult casters both use spiritual essence to telekinetically lift objects, in line with bards' access to force spells, and arcane and primal casters both use material essence to cook and tidy objects.
But, nonetheless, non-arcane casters just getting a *strictly* worse version of the same spell *feels* bad. So 5e introduced the cantrips thaumaturgy and druidcraft that gave them fewer uses, yes, but cool, different, and thematic uses: Clerics "manifest a minor wonder, a sign of supernatural power", e.g., your voice booms up to three times as loud as normal, or you cause harmless tremors in the ground. Druids can predict the weather, or make a flower blossom. Could PF2 just . . . do that? Give each magical tradition, like, one or two uses exclusive to that tradition?