Pattern quality decisions impact production escapes and test time.
compression logic footprint
hold buffers from scan paths
shift toggling peaks
capture burst stress
test-clock skew
shift/capture path sensitivity
chain route detours
placement hotspots near test logic
pattern replay correlation
diagnosis reproducibility
SILICON IMPACT - Fault Models
area/power/timing/yield tradeoffSignoff needs silicon evidence
Ownership clarity accelerates closure
CHAIN BALANCE - Fault Models
chain length
^
| o o
| o o o
| o
+-----------------------------> chain index
Tight spread reduces shift time and hold-fix burden.ATPG quality comes from fault model choice plus legal constraints, not raw pattern volume alone.
ATPG FLOW
fault model -> constraints -> generation -> simulation -> coverage closure -> signoffCOVERAGE GAP
target coverage
^
| o before closure
| o after fixes
+---------------------> iterationfault model coverage
untestable class report
constraint legality errors
pattern signoff memo
Transition coverage stalled due to clock constraints mismatch; updated at-speed capture definitions recovered target.
Classify untestable faults
Diff ATPG constraints each run
Pair coverage with pattern budget
Ask: what evidence proves this DFT decision is safe for production?
State metric, lot/corner context, and pattern tag with every claim.
Treat timing, power, and quality as one signoff problem.
Chasing coverage without legality checks.
Ignoring test-power side effects of pattern changes.
Debugging silicon without reproducible tags.
Fault models define what manufacturing defects ATPG targets; model mix drives pattern count, runtime, and outgoing quality.
Metric: stuck-at / transition / bridge coverage, untestable fault ratio
This content block can't be displayed here.
Block type: unknown
This content block can't be displayed here.
Block type: unknown
This content block can't be displayed here.
Block type: unknown