Coverage Closure: Reports & Metrics

Reports and metrics

Reports & Metrics for Coverage Closure focuses on coverage gap to target, dominant undetected classes, closure iteration count. The goal is to convert metric movement into mechanism, owner, and release decision.

A report should support a release decision for coverage gap to target, dominant undetected classes, closure iteration count. One headline number is rarely enough without setup tags and bucket-level evidence.

Metric movement

METRIC GRAPH - coverage gap to target, dominant undetected classes, closure iteration count

quality metric
  ^
  |                         target
  |                       - - - - - - -
  |                  o after fix + regression
  |              o
  |         o baseline
  |    o regressed run
  +--------------------------------------> closure iteration
    input audit     focused fix      signoff review

Readout:
  - explain what moved, why it moved, and who approved it

Distribution view

PATTERN HISTOGRAM - Coverage Closure

pattern count
  |      ***
  |    *******
  |  ***********
  |*************  <- high-volume tail (optimize here)
  +--------------------> pattern buckets
   smoke  stuck-at  transition  diagnosis

Balance quality and tester limits together.

• Track coverage gap to target, dominant undetected classes, closure iteration count by context and pattern class.

• Review trend and bucket detail together.

• Keep quality, timing, and power metrics in one dashboard.

• Store each metric next to the artifact and run tag.

DFT deep dive

ATPG quality comes from fault model choice plus legal constraints, not raw pattern volume alone.

Concept diagram

ATPG FLOW

fault model -> constraints -> generation -> simulation -> coverage closure -> signoff

Metric graph

COVERAGE GAP

target coverage
  ^
  |      o before closure
  |          o after fixes
  +---------------------> iteration

Reports and artifacts

• fault model coverage

• untestable class report

• constraint legality errors

• pattern signoff memo

Mini case study

Transition coverage stalled due to clock constraints mismatch; updated at-speed capture definitions recovered target.

Debug branches

• Classify untestable faults

• Diff ATPG constraints each run

• Pair coverage with pattern budget

Senior review question

Ask: what evidence proves this DFT decision is safe for production?

Key takeaways

• State metric, lot/corner context, and pattern tag with every claim.

• Treat timing, power, and quality as one signoff problem.

Common pitfalls

• Chasing coverage without legality checks.

• Ignoring test-power side effects of pattern changes.

• Debugging silicon without reproducible tags.

Reading reports