CDC / RDC · All levels

CDC Tool Flow: Comparison Matrix

Comparison Matrix for CDC Tool Flow.

Comparison matrix

Aggressive waivers reduce schedule pressure but increase silicon risk.

diagram

+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Approach         | Strength       | Weakness       | Best when      |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Conservative     | safe           | extra latency  | high-risk crossings |
| Balanced         | practical      | more setup     | most production paths |
| Aggressive       | fast schedule  | escape risk    | late-stage crunch |
| Refactor         | structural gain | long cycle     | recurring failures |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

When to choose each approach

Select approach by silicon risk, not only schedule urgency

Interview traps

Global waiver spray
Unproven protocol assumptions

Evidence comparison

diagram

CDC/RDC EVIDENCE MATRIX — CDC Tool Flow

+-----------------------+----------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| Evidence              | Tells you                  | Does not prove             | Next action               |
+-----------------------+----------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| structural report     | crossing topology class    | protocol liveness          | add assertions/formal     |
| reset map             | release dependencies       | dynamic startup behavior   | run reset stress tests    |
| formal proof          | bounded safety/liveness    | real firmware sequence     | correlate with simulation |
| simulation stress     | observed mode behavior     | full state-space closure   | target unhit corners      |
| waiver log            | accepted residual risk     | technical correctness      | periodic revalidation     |
+-----------------------+----------------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+

CDC/RDC deep dive

Signoff is an evidence governance problem across teams.

Concept diagram

diagram

CDC SIGNOFF LOOP

analysis -> triage -> fix/waive -> review gate -> dashboard

Metric graph

diagram

CRITICAL OPEN COUNT

week1 34
week2 22
week3 10
week4 0

Reports and artifacts

critical by owner
waiver quality
review gate status
closure trend

Mini case study

Pass rates improved while critical waivers aged out of policy; dashboard exposed hidden risk.

Debug branches

Separate quality from quantity metrics
enforce waiver expiry
run gate checklists consistently

Senior review question

Ask: what evidence proves this risk is closed for silicon, not just tool-clean?

Key takeaways

State crossing class, assumptions, and owner with every issue.
Run structural and dynamic regressions after each fix.

Common pitfalls

Treating all warnings as equivalent risk.
Waiving issues without containment evidence.
Skipping reset and reconvergence stress after CDC fixes.

Principal CDC/RDC review addendum

Robust CDC signoff combines structural analysis, protocol checks, reset analysis, and targeted formal/simulation evidence with consistent setup tagging.

Metric: analysis runtime, violation classification completeness, delta noise between runs

Practice this lesson