Design space exploration

For UPF Object Model, policy choices trade leakage, wake latency, and robustness.

Option A — conservative

• Conservative policy: helps predictable behavior

• Risk: extra area/leakage

• Validate with: first-silicon bring-up

Option B — balanced

• Balanced policy: helps practical overhead

• Risk: requires strong verification

• Validate with: production targets

Option C — aggressive optimization

• Aggressive optimization: helps power savings

• Risk: transition fragility

• Validate with: late optimization

Option D — architecture refactor

• Architecture refactor: helps structural clarity

• Risk: schedule risk

• Validate with: chronic escapes

DESIGN SPACE — UPF Object Model
leakage <-> wake latency <-> robustness <-> schedule

Design pitfalls

• Over-optimizing leakage without transition evidence

• Policy changes without ownership signoff

Tradeoff curve

BEFORE / AFTER FIX — UPF Object Model

metric quality
  ^
  |                       o target region
  |                 o post-fix + regression
  |            o
  |      o failing baseline
  +----------------------------------------> iteration
      sequence audit   policy fix   full re-run

Low-power deep dive

Power intent must be explicit, reviewable, and tool-consistent from day one.

Concept diagram

POWER INTENT FLOW

architecture -> UPF objects -> tool binding -> verification evidence

Metric graph

INTENT QUALITY

bound policies      ████████████ high
stale references    ███          medium risk
missing states      ██           high risk

Reports and artifacts

• PST report

• domain map

• UPF lint

• policy binding summary

Mini case study

One missing PST entry blocked legal retention mode and caused false debug loops.

Debug branches

• Check legal state table first

• Audit policy binding IDs

• Freeze UPF revision tags

Senior review question

Ask: what transition evidence proves this topic is closed, and which owner signs it?

Key takeaways

• State transition context must accompany every low-power metric claim.

• Intent changes require simulation, formal, and implementation re-validation.

Common pitfalls

• Comparing results from mismatched UPF revisions.

• Assuming static checks replace transition validation.

• Shipping with aged waivers and unclear ownership.

Execution drill pack 1

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 1

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 2

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 2

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 3

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 3

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 4

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 4

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 5

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 5

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 6

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 6

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 7

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 7

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 8

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 8

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 9

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 9

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 10

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 10

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 11

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 11

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 12

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 12

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Execution drill pack 13

Use this pack to rehearse low-power closure on low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space: transition framing, policy ownership, implementation evidence, and release confidence.

Transition checklist

• State transition explicitly named with legal source/target states.

• Crossing and domain ownership are mapped and agreed.

• Policy controls are traced to always-on source logic.

• Waveform bookmarks align controls with state timestamps.

Review prompts

1. Which policy object is first to deviate from intent?

2. Which owner can apply the smallest reversible fix?

3. What regression matrix proves no collateral damage?

4. Which waiver conditions would still block release?

Evidence capsule

LP EVIDENCE CAPSULE 13

PATH: low-power/power-intent-fundamentals/upf-object-model/design-space
STATE WINDOW: <from -> to>
POLICY OBJECT: <isolation / retention / shifter / switch>
OWNER: <name>
PRIMARY ARTIFACT: <report/waveform/formal result>
RELEASE DECISION: <close / bounded waiver / escalate>

Principal LP review addendum

UPF objects (domains, supply nets, sets, strategies, controls) form a graph that tools resolve from RTL through implementation.

Metric: UPF lint violations, unresolved object references, and policy binding success