You are told: late in the project, the structural report carries one open item the team wants waived. A 16-bit configuration bus crosses from a control clock into a datapath clock with no synchroniser. The designers' justification reads: the bus is quasi-static, written only during initialisation while the datapath is held in reset, so no synchroniser is needed. The verification lead answers: no proof of that claim exists anywhere, and the register interface allows writes at any time. Tape-out review is in two weeks.
A waiver is a safety claim with evidence, and this one has the shape of a claim with adjectives. Missing: proof the bus is stable whenever the destination samples it, proof the interface cannot write during operation, and any statement of what happens if the assumption is wrong. The design lesson behind the dispute is Static by Construction: quasi-static is a contract with four parties, source stability, qualification, constraints, and review, and this request evidences none of them.
It describes intent, not enforcement: without proof that writes are impossible during operation, through the interface, the constraints, or qualification logic, the claim is a hope about software behaviour, not a hardware guarantee.