Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Boundary Cell Design focuses on boundary violation count, level-shifter coverage, clamp correctness. 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 — Boundary Cell Design

boundary violation count, level-shifter coverage, clamp correctness 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 / Boundary Cell Design

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: boundary violation count, level-shifter coverage, clamp correctness
   - 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: Boundary cells protect logic domains at analog interfaces by enforcing voltage tolerance, clamp behavior, and legal signal ownership during power sequencing.
   - 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: boundary-cell checklist, level-shifter audit report, reset isolation table
   - Required owners: AMS integration lead, digital implementation owner, library owner
   - 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

Boundary cells protect logic domains at analog interfaces by enforcing voltage tolerance, clamp behavior, and legal signal ownership during power sequencing.

Metric: boundary violation count, level-shifter coverage, clamp correctness