DFT / ATPG · All levels
Diagnosis & Yield Learning: Debug Playbook
Debug Playbook for Diagnosis & Yield Learning.
Debug playbook
Debug Playbook for Diagnosis & Yield Learning focuses on diagnosis resolution, top failing buckets, yield learning turnaround. The goal is to convert metric movement into mechanism, owner, and release decision.
Debug aims to find the first incorrect assumption, not the loudest downstream symptom. Start with reproducibility and ownership.
Root-cause tree
ROOT-CAUSE TREE - Diagnosis & Yield Learning
diagnosis resolution, top failing buckets, yield learning turnaround regresses
|
setup changed?
/ \
yes no
| |
constraint silicon or
or ATPG physical/test path
/ \ |
SDC model chain/clock/power/diagnosis
diff diff isolate first failing signatureFreeze run tags for patterns, constraints, and tester setup.
Isolate first failing metric bucket and scenario.
Classify failure source: model, constraints, physical, or silicon.
Prove mechanism with one reduced replay or targeted run.
Apply smallest owner-controlled fix.
Re-run timing, power, and quality regression matrix.
Review memo template
STAFF DFT REVIEW MEMO - Compression & Diagnosis / Diagnosis & Yield Learning
1. Symptom
- Watched metric: diagnosis resolution, top failing buckets, yield learning turnaround
- Failing scenario: <mode/lot/corner/program>
- Pattern class: <scan/transition/compressed/BIST/JTAG>
- Tags: <constraints, patterns, tester program, netlist>
2. Mechanism hypothesis
- Primary mechanism: Fail logs and diagnosis map failing signatures back to likely defect sites, enabling systematic yield learning loops with design and process teams.
- Competing hypothesis: <constraint issue, model issue, physical issue, silicon issue>
- Missing evidence: <report, replay, diagnosis trace>
3. Proposed action
- Minimal reversible change: <constraint fix, architecture tweak, pattern update>
- Expected metric movement: <delta>
- Regression risk: timing, power, quality, schedule
4. Signoff
- Re-run artifact: diagnosis report, fail-log bucket table, yield pareto dashboard
- Required owners: product test owner, yield engineer, DFT lead
- Final decision: release, waive, rollback, or escalateDFT deep dive
Compression saves tester time only when diagnosis observability remains credible.
Concept diagram
COMPRESSION LOOP
EDT/decompressor -> compressed patterns -> compactor responses -> diagnosisMetric graph
PATTERN vs COVERAGE
coverage up -> pattern count up
compression up -> pattern count down (until aliasing risk)Reports and artifacts
compression ratio dashboard
pattern count trend
X-source report
diagnosis bucket summary
Mini case study
Compactor overflow plus unknown inflation caused false diagnosis; masking policy and channel map corrected.
Debug branches
Separate X issues from silicon defects
Replay failing patterns uncompressed
Track tester memory 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.
Principal DFT review addendum
Fail logs and diagnosis map failing signatures back to likely defect sites, enabling systematic yield learning loops with design and process teams.
Metric: diagnosis resolution, top failing buckets, yield learning turnaround