CDC / RDC · All levels
Scenario: Metastability Bug: Inputs & Outputs
Inputs & Outputs for Scenario: Metastability Bug.
Inputs and outputs contract
Inputs & Outputs for Scenario: Metastability Bug focuses on root-cause depth, containment plan clarity, debug sequencing. The goal is to convert issue observations into mechanism-backed closure decisions.
Treat CDC/RDC signoff as a contract across architecture, RTL, DV, and signoff governance. Most late surprises are contract mismatches, not tooling gaps.
INPUTS
- crossing inventory with intent classification
- reset tree and release dependency model
- protocol assumptions and assertion package
- CDC/RDC tool configuration + waiver policy
OUTPUTS
- severity-tagged open issue list
- protocol/reset proof evidence
- owner-assigned closure plan
- signoff or escalation memoCrossing sequence
CROSSING FLOW — Scenario: Metastability Bug
source clock domain -> launch signal -> crossing structure -> destination sample
| | | |
source FF protocol sync / fifo destination FF
Key metric: root-cause depth, containment plan clarity, debug sequencingOwnership map
OWNERSHIP MAP — Scenario: Metastability Bug
artifact owner
---------------------- -------------------------
design intent candidate
verification evidence CDC owner
signoff decision DV lead
Every open CDC/RDC issue needs one accountable owner before waiver or fix.Scenario debrief
Score each response on mechanism clarity, evidence quality, and signoff decision discipline.
INTERVIEW FLOW
classify -> explain mechanism -> propose fix -> state regressionPRACTICE SCORE
session1 62%
session2 78%
session3 89%Debrief prompts
Which crossing class or reset dependency failed first?
What evidence changed your decision?
Fix, waive, or escalate and why?
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.