Skip to content
DenseChip
Learn
PracticeCode labInterview

DenseChip

Navigate

Menu

LearnPracticeCode labInterview

Tools

All toolsSV editorCode repoResume
DenseChip

Practice, courses, and chip-design tools in one focused workspace.

LearnPracticeCode labInterviewToolsLearning paths

© 2026 DenseChip

AboutRoadmapCareersInternshipsFAQContactPrivacyTerms
Skip to lesson

Course contents

  • How to Use This Course
  • Reading Paths
  • Glossary
  • Metrics Reference
  • Formal Cheat Sheet
  • Formal Foundations19
  • Properties and SVA16
  • Property Development and Constraints19
  • Proof Engines and Convergence23
  • Formal Applications20
  • Equivalence Checking14
  • Formal Coverage and Signoff15
    • Cover Properties, Vacuity and Reachability
    • Formal Coverage Metrics
    • Bounded Proof Signoff
    • The Formal Signoff Package
      • The Signoff Checklist in Full
      • Worked Signoff of sync_fifo
      • Formal and Simulation, One Ledger
  • Methodology and Debug13
  • Interview Prep15
  • Capstone: A Chip-Block Verification Lab24
Loading lesson

←The Formal Signoff Package
  1. Topics
  2. Formal Verification
  3. Formal Coverage and Signoff
  4. The Formal Signoff Package
  5. The Signoff Checklist in Full
On this page

    Part 7 of 10, lesson 13 of 15Part 7 of 10/Formal Coverage and Signoff/Lesson 13 of 15All levels

    The Signoff Checklist in Full

    Walk every line of the formal sign-off checklist with the evidence each line demands.

    Why it matters

    A sign-off question in an interview or a release review always takes the same shape: what evidence would you require? The answer is a checklist, and each line names its evidence, not its aspiration. This lesson is that checklist, with every line pointing at the lesson that teaches the technique behind it, so no line can be waved through.

    The core idea

    Seven lines, each with a pass criterion a script or a reviewer can verify. Every property proven, bounded with justification, or waived with evidence; all required covers reached with witnesses read; the assumption register reviewed with each assumption discharged; cone and mutation coverage reported; coverage numbers paired with their bounds; results tied to the final source hash; waivers reviewed with owners and expiries. A package missing any line is not a partial sign-off; it is not a sign-off.

    The checklist

    Line

    Evidence required

    Taught in

    Every property proven, or bounded with justification, or waived with evidence.

    Ledger rows with statuses and justification references; no inconclusive row unaccounted.

    The Proof Status Ledger, Justifying a Bound.

    All required covers reached.

    Cover witnesses read and recorded; missed covers inconclusive, never silent.

    Antecedent Covers and Witness Traces, Bounded Cover Miss Is Inconclusive.

    Assumption register reviewed and each assumption discharged.

    Influence table; every assumption an assertion elsewhere or a reviewed constraint.

    Assumption Influence and Coverage, Over-Constraint Seen Through Covers.

    Cone and mutation coverage reported.

    Union-of-cones with uncovered blocks owned; mutation score with survivors owned.

    Proof Core and Cone Coverage, Mutation-Based Formal Coverage, Vacuity by Mutation and Sensitivity.

    Coverage numbers paired with bounds.

    No coverage row without its bound and justification.

    What the Numbers Do Not Say.

    Results tied to the final source hash.

    Hash gate passing on the release candidate.

    Stale Proofs and Source Hashes.

    Waivers reviewed with evidence, owners and expiries.

    Waiver file with invariant or constraint references; expired waivers reopened.

    Inconclusive Results and Waivers.

    What the reviewer looks for

    • Each line resolves to a document or a script result, never to a verbal assurance.

    • The drill-down works: from any line to the run, the witness, or the proof behind it in one step.

    • The package fits the release candidate exactly: hash, file list and ledger agree.

    Verify and debug

    Rehearse the defence before the review: pick any three lines and produce the evidence cold. If producing it takes more than minutes, the package is not assembled, only described. Common holes are covers nobody read, assumptions nobody discharged, and a ledger whose hashes lag the tree; the gate scripts in the linked lessons catch all three mechanically.

    The positive dashboard with unread covers: symptom is a sign-off meeting where every chart is positive and no witness was ever read. Cause is treating the dashboard as evidence rather than as an index into evidence. Fix is this checklist walked line by line, with the drill-down demonstrated live. It is found by asking for one witness, one discharge, and one justification in the room.

    Expect the whiteboard question: formal sign-off, what evidence would you require? Answer with the seven lines above in order, then offer the worked FIFO package as the example you can walk. The scoring rewards stated assumptions, the engine mechanism behind each claim, the trade-off between bound and proof effort, and the named evidence for each line.

    Check yourself Six of seven checklist lines are satisfied and the assumption register is missing. Do you sign?

    No. The proofs are conditional on undocumented terms, so their meaning is unknown. The register is not paperwork; it is part of the result.

    Related topics

    • Next: Worked Signoff of sync_fifo

    • Formal: Formal Test Plan

    • Verification First Principles: Sign-Off

    Previous

    129 / 183

    Next: Worked Signoff of sync_fifo

    Up next

    Up nextWorked Signoff of sync_fifo

    Sign in to save progress

    Practice this lessonPrevious lessonReport an error

    See also

    • Formal and Simulation, One Ledger