AMS Handoff Contract: Debug Playbook

Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for AMS Handoff Contract focuses on handoff completeness score, late-change churn, integration escape count. The goal is to connect observed symptom to boundary mechanism, ownership, and signoff risk.

AMS debug is a hunt for first divergence, not downstream symptom management. Most costly delays come from wrong-owner first actions.

Root-cause tree

ROOT-CAUSE TREE — AMS Handoff Contract

handoff completeness score, late-change churn, integration escape count regressed
        |
same silicon / run tags?
   /            \
 no              yes
 |                |
env mismatch    boundary contract or
tag mismatch    true physical issue
 /   \             |
clk   reset      isolate first failing
map   sequence   boundary transition

1. Freeze reproducer: mode, firmware/config, and evidence tags.

2. Find the first boundary signal that diverges.

3. Map divergence to contract clause and owner.

4. Classify failure: contract, sequencing, coupling, package, or tool-view mismatch.

5. Prove mechanism with one reduced reproducer.

6. Apply smallest reversible fix and rerun cross-domain regressions.

Review memo template

STAFF AMS REVIEW MEMO — Analog-Digital Boundaries / AMS Handoff Contract

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: handoff completeness score, late-change churn, integration escape count
   - Failing mode/condition: <power/clock/temp/workload>
   - Boundary under suspicion: <macro/wrapper/interface/lane/island>
   - Repro setup: <sim/emulation/lab + firmware/config tags>

2. Mechanism hypothesis
   - Primary mechanism: A complete AMS handoff defines legal clocks, resets, power states, wrapper assumptions, and validation evidence so digital integration does not guess analog intent.
   - Competing hypothesis: <contract gap, sequencing, physical coupling, package, tooling>
   - Missing evidence: <waveform, report, scope/analyzer capture, dashboard snapshot>

3. Proposed action
   - Minimal reversible change: <RTL/config/layout/policy>
   - Expected metric movement: <delta and conditions>
   - Regression risk: timing, noise, power, performance, compatibility

4. Signoff
   - Re-run artifact: AMS handoff package, interface spec matrix, signoff checklist
   - Required owners: analog lead, digital lead, program integration manager
   - Final decision: fix, waive with controls, or escalate

AMS deep dive

Boundary assumptions must be explicit, versioned, and testable.

Concept diagram

BOUNDARY CONTRACT FLOW

analog intent -> boundary implementation -> digital wrapper -> signed review

Metric graph

BOUNDARY RISK MIX

missing boundary cells    ███████
stale handoff assumptions ██████
silent mode changes       ████

Reports and artifacts

• boundary-cell coverage

• isolation/ESD review

• handoff contract checklist

• integration waiver log

Mini case study

Noise bursts traced to missing isolation clamp on one low-power transition mode.

Debug branches

• Validate boundary-cell insertion

• Diff handoff assumptions

• Reproduce with tagged mode sequence

Senior review question

Ask: what boundary condition proves this topic is actually closed?

Key takeaways

• State boundary, mode, and evidence tag with every claim.

• Always align analog, digital, and physical owners before signoff decisions.

Common pitfalls

• Fixing averages while tails still fail.

• Skipping package/supply evidence in jitter or SerDes issues.

• Shipping with waivers that lack owner and expiration criteria.

Principal AMS review addendum

A complete AMS handoff defines legal clocks, resets, power states, wrapper assumptions, and validation evidence so digital integration does not guess analog intent.

Metric: handoff completeness score, late-change churn, integration escape count