Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Scenario: SerDes Bring-up Collapse focuses on L0 bring-up pass rate, BER spikes, retrain frequency. 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 — Scenario: SerDes Bring-up Collapse

L0 bring-up pass rate, BER spikes, retrain frequency 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 — AMS Interface Interview Prep / Scenario: SerDes Bring-up Collapse

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: L0 bring-up pass rate, BER spikes, retrain frequency
   - 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: SerDes bring-up failures usually combine training state assumptions, SI margin, and firmware sequencing; diagnosing only one layer misses interaction faults.
   - 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: LTSSM/training log, lane margin data, firmware trace
   - Required owners: SerDes owner, firmware owner, validation owner
   - Final decision: fix, waive with controls, or escalate

AMS deep dive

Senior interview answers must show mechanism, ownership, and regression discipline.

Concept diagram

INTERVIEW LADDER

symptom -> mechanism -> evidence -> owner -> bounded fix -> regression

Metric graph

ANSWER QUALITY

mechanism depth ██████
evidence usage  █████
ownership clarity ████

Reports and artifacts

• mock interview rubric

• scenario response score

• evidence completeness

• regression-plan quality

Mini case study

Candidate fixed the symptom but failed to define a regression matrix and ownership map.

Debug branches

• Name first failing boundary

• State one proving artifact

• Propose one bounded reversible fix

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

SerDes bring-up failures usually combine training state assumptions, SI margin, and firmware sequencing; diagnosing only one layer misses interaction faults.

Metric: L0 bring-up pass rate, BER spikes, retrain frequency