Design space exploration

For UPF Consistency Audit, 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 Consistency Audit
leakage <-> wake latency <-> robustness <-> schedule

Design pitfalls

• Over-optimizing leakage without transition evidence

• Policy changes without ownership signoff

Tradeoff curve

BEFORE / AFTER FIX — UPF Consistency Audit

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

Cross-tool intent drift is a leading source of late low-power escapes.

Concept diagram

RTL+UPF -> synthesis view -> PD view -> signoff consistency

Metric graph

MISMATCH TREND

handoff week1  ███████
week2          ████
week3          ██

Reports and artifacts

• RTL handoff checklist

• post-synth LP report

• PD LP implementation report

• consistency diff

Mini case study

Synthesis and PD used mismatched UPF revisions; only consistency audit exposed the drift.

Debug branches

• Compare UPF revision tags

• Check object rename mapping

• Run semantic consistency tool

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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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/upf-implementation-flow/upf-consistency-audit/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

Consistency audits compare intent interpretation across RTL, synthesis, PD, simulation, and formal views to prevent semantic drift.

Metric: cross-tool mismatch count, stale UPF object references, and signoff waiver backlog