Reports and Metrics for BMC vs Unbounded Proof Strategies is anchored on Bound depth achieved, k-induction success rate, and ratio of bug-find to full-proof properties.. Convert outcomes into assumption-aware, evidence-backed actions.
A useful report explains why closure quality moved, not only that status changed.
EVIDENCE MATRIX - BMC vs Unbounded Proof Strategies
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Evidence | Tells you | Does not prove | Next action |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+---------------------------+
| property status by class | closure shape by requirement | model realism | pair with cover reachability |
| vacuity and trigger checks | assertion meaningfulness | full legal-path exploration | inspect assumptions |
| counterexample traces | concrete divergence path | complete bug-space closure | classify and replay |
| assumption audit trail | model boundary confidence | implementation correctness | review spec traceability |
| before/after trend packet | mitigation movement quality | long-window stability | run broader matrix |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+--------------------------------+---------------------------+Track Bound depth achieved, k-induction success rate, and ratio of bug-find to full-proof properties. by requirement class and risk tier.
Include assumption and tool metadata in every report header.
Correlate status with vacuity and cover reachability movement.
Call out contradictory evidence explicitly.
Convergence requires engine strategy, invariant quality, and model realism to move together with measurable progress.
CONVERGENCE DECISION FLOW
property bucket -> engine strategy -> helper invariants -> convergence audit -> closureCONVERGENCE BURNDOWN
open hard properties ███████
inconclusive aging █████
closed with audit ████████engine effectiveness by property class
induction and helper-lemma success ratio
stalled-property aging dashboard
runtime vs closure-quality movement
A stalled set closed only after case-splitting by mode and auditing fairness assumptions for realism.
Bucket properties by structure and intent before tuning.
Inspect proof core stability, not runtime alone.
Reject speed gains that reduce legal reachability.
Ask: which requirement intent is proven, under which assumptions, and what residual risk remains?
Tie each proof claim to assumption boundaries and reachability evidence.
Prefer minimal reversible fixes and preserve legal behavior visibility.
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.
Report status with vacuity, cover reachability, and assumption influence side by side.
Promote only when trend data supports reproducible closure behavior.
This content block can't be displayed here.
Block type: unknown