Formal Signoff Criteria and Integration with Simulation Coverage: Debug Playbook

Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Formal Signoff Criteria and Integration with Simulation Coverage is anchored on non-vacuous closure rate, counterexample turnaround, and residual-risk trend by requirement class. Convert outcomes into assumption-aware, evidence-backed actions.

1. Freeze assumptions, RTL hash, and engine metadata.

2. Locate first divergence cycle and classify source.

3. Classify mechanism: model mismatch, weak property, setup issue, or RTL defect.

4. Apply one focused reproducer and one bounded fix.

5. Re-run sibling properties and critical covers before closure.

Review memo template

FORMAL REVIEW MEMO - Formal Coverage & Signoff / Formal Signoff Criteria and Integration with Simulation Coverage

1. Symptom
   - Failing metric: non-vacuous closure rate, counterexample turnaround, and residual-risk trend by requirement class
   - Trigger context: <mode/reset/env assumptions>
   - First divergence boundary: <model/property/rtl>

2. Mechanism hypothesis
   - Candidate mechanism: Formal signoff should be requirement-centric and multi-evidence: property closure quality, cover reachability, assumption audits, waiver governance, and correlation with simulation functional coverage all need to agree on risk posture.
   - Competing hypotheses: weak property, over-constraint, setup mismatch, rtl bug
   - Missing evidence: <trace, vacuity report, cover status>

3. Proposed action
   - Smallest reversible change: <assumption/property/rtl>
   - Expected movement: <closure quality, runtime, bug isolation>
   - Regression risk: hidden legal behavior, false pass, schedule churn

4. Signoff
   - Required artifact: closure packet for Formal Signoff Criteria and Integration with Simulation Coverage: assumptions audit, proof status matrix, and replay-ready divergence trace
   - Required owners: formal verification owner, rtl owner, Formal Coverage & Signoff owner
   - Final decision: close, bounded closure, rollback, or escalate

Formal deep dive

Signoff quality is requirement-centric and must integrate proof status, reachability, bounded limits, and waiver governance.

Concept diagram

FORMAL SIGNOFF PYRAMID

requirements -> properties and covers -> quality metrics -> waiver governance -> release decision

Metric graph

SIGNOFF CONFIDENCE TREND

fully proven critical    ███████
bounded-only critical    ████
unexplained cover gaps   ███

Metrics and artifacts to collect

• requirement-to-proof closure map

• critical cover reachability and gap aging

• bounded-only risk register

• waiver debt with owner and expiry

Mini case study

A release review blocked signoff until bounded-only properties were paired with explicit residual-risk and replay plans.

Debug branches

• Separate status color from proof quality dimensions.

• Treat unreachable critical covers as signoff blockers.

• Document bounded-horizon rationale with architecture limits.

Senior review question

Ask: which requirement intent is proven, under which assumptions, and what residual risk remains?

Key takeaways

• Tie each proof claim to assumption boundaries and reachability evidence.

• Prefer minimal reversible fixes and preserve legal behavior visibility.

Common pitfalls

• Treating runtime reduction as proof-quality improvement without audits.

• Declaring closure while critical covers remain unreachable.

• Using broad waivers instead of first-divergence root-cause ownership.

Debug ladder

Sequence: reproduce -> classify -> isolate first divergence -> patch -> revalidate sibling properties.

Avoid mixing assumption and RTL fixes in the same experiment.