Formal Verification Whiteboard Framework

Whiteboard flow

1. Draw requirement -> property -> assumption -> proof -> signoff loop.
2. Mark failing metric and first divergence boundary.
3. Add bounded/unbounded and reachability context.
4. Name proving artifact and owner.
5. End with bounded fix and rollback trigger.

Key takeaways

• Strong answers connect formal semantics to release-risk decisions.

• Never skip assumption boundaries and residual-risk framing.

Formal deep dive

Formal success depends on model realism, traceable assumptions, and requirement-centric closure.

Concept diagram

requirements -> model -> proof status -> closure decision

Metric graph

closure confidence trend by risk tier

Metrics and artifacts to collect

• proof quality metrics

• reachability status

• residual-risk summary

Mini case study

Classify first divergence before changing assumptions or RTL.

Debug branches

• Classify failure

• Collect evidence

• Apply bounded fix

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.