Scenario: Waiver Debate: Software / Programmer View

RTL / implementation view

Whiteboard quality improves with repeatable decomposition flow.

What designers feel

• Intermittent sync failure

• mode-dependent startup hangs

RTL structure impact

• state machine handshake discipline

• reset release assumptions

• cross-domain data packaging

Synthesis interaction

• retiming can invalidate implicit assumptions

• lint clean does not imply CDC-safe

RTL-side mitigations

• explicit synchronizer wrappers

• protocol assertions

• reset sequence tests

RTL VIEW — Scenario: Waiver Debate
// ensure crossing intent and protocol assumptions are explicit in module contract

Implementation layers touched

CDC/RDC OWNERSHIP LAYERS — Scenario: Waiver Debate

layer                 owns                            common failure
------------------    -----------------------------   -----------------------------
design intent         crossing architecture           wrong topology selected
protocol semantics    req/ack, fifo, ordering        liveness/deadlock bugs
reset behavior        assert/deassert sequencing      boot instability
analysis setup        tool rules + waivers            false confidence
signoff governance    risk acceptance + dashboard     stale critical waivers

Scenario debrief

Score each response on mechanism clarity, evidence quality, and signoff decision discipline.

INTERVIEW FLOW

classify -> explain mechanism -> propose fix -> state regression

PRACTICE SCORE

session1 62%
session2 78%
session3 89%

Debrief prompts

1. Which crossing class or reset dependency failed first?

2. What evidence changed your decision?

3. 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.