Low Power Verification Whiteboard Framework

Whiteboard flow

1. Draw phase timeline: mode request -> entry -> off-state -> exit.
2. Mark failing boundary and observed metric movement.
3. Add isolation, retention, and X-prop assumptions.
4. Name proving artifact and owner.
5. End with bounded fix and rollback trigger.

Key takeaways

• Strong answers connect power semantics to measurable verification behavior.

• Never skip ownership and rollback criteria in closure decisions.

Low-power verification deep dive

Low-power verification success is measured by transition correctness, evidence quality, and reproducible closure decisions.

Concept diagram

intent -> transition behavior -> evidence -> owner action -> closure

Metric graph

escape risk and closure trend

Metrics and artifacts to collect

• failure classifier

• transition timeline

• before-after closure packet

Mini case study

Prove first failing transition boundary before broad architectural changes.

Debug branches

• Classify failure

• Collect evidence

• Apply bounded fix

Senior review question

Ask: what exact low-power transition boundary failed first, and which artifact proves the closure claim reproducibly?

Key takeaways

• Tie each LPV claim to a concrete transition boundary and one proving artifact.

• Prefer minimal reversible fixes with explicit owner and rollback criteria.

Common pitfalls

• Treating power-aware failures as random before boundary classification.

• Waiving X-prop failures before proving impact and root cause.

• Declaring closure without deterministic replay across key modes.