Floorplan Review Checklist — Mechanism

Physical and tool mechanism

Checklist-driven reviews convert implicit assumptions into measurable gates across area, macros, power, interfaces, and hierarchy.

Mechanism to narrate

• Each gate item needs evidence artifact plus owner.

• Failed items require dated mitigation plan, not verbal intent.

• Checklist outcome should decide placement entry, not calendar pressure.

Reference workflow

1. Identify where Floorplan Review Checklist sits in the PD flow
2. Name inputs consumed and outputs produced
3. State the metric that proves success or failure
4. Link to the next downstream stage that depends on this step

Key takeaways

• Narrate Floorplan Review Checklist using metrics, not tool commands alone.

10+ year engineer lens

A senior engineer does not describe Floorplan Review Checklist as a tool step. They explain what physical assumption changed, which report becomes trustworthy after that change, and which downstream owner can now make a decision.

Boundary conditions to state

• Which stage of the database is valid: pre-CTS, post-CTS, post-route, post-fill, or final signoff.

• Which approximation is still present: estimated RC, ideal clock, abstracted macro, vectorless power, or waived PV rule.

• Which downstream result depends on this mechanism: Placement kickoff quality and milestone predictability depend on this gate discipline..

What top-company reviewers expect

• You can point to Floorplan review scorecard and risk register before proposing a fix.

• You can separate a local symptom from a systematic methodology issue.

• You can explain why the fix is reversible, bounded, and cheaper than the alternatives.

Deep dive: how this shows up in real closure

Floorplan quality is the earliest predictor of place-and-route pain.

Reports and artifacts to inspect

• floorplan summary: core area, macro area, std-cell utilization

• macro/channel review: pin-facing sides, halos, routing channels

• power plan preview: ring width, strap pitch, follow-pin connectivity

• trial route congestion: overflow around macro corners and pin fields

Mini case study

A 2 MB SRAM cluster is placed with pins facing the die edge. Trial route shows red overflow along the north edge. A senior PD answer is to rotate or mirror the SRAM, open the channel, and re-run trial route before attempting timing optimization.

Debug branches

• If congestion is local to macro corners, inspect pin sides and halo width before reducing global utilization.

• If IR is weak at the core edge, widen the ring or add edge straps before adding random decaps.

• If timing paths cross the whole block, review pin assignment and macro orientation before post-route ECO.

Senior review question

Ask yourself: what single report line would prove this page's concept is either passing or failing?

What changes at 10+ years

• You are expected to predict what your fix can break before running it.

• You should recognize when the issue is methodology, not one block's implementation.

• You should communicate risk in tapeout language: owner, evidence, impact, mitigation, and decision date.

Principal-level review bar

Deep subpage pages in this course should be read like real closure review material. For a 10+ year PD engineer, the bar is not remembering terminology; it is making a release-quality decision under ambiguity.

What excellent looks like

• Names the failing metric, corner/mode, database tag, and analysis switches before proposing a fix.

• Separates data, constraint, physical, tool, and methodology root causes instead of treating all failures as optimization problems.

• Chooses experiments by information gain and reversibility, not by habit.

• States regression blast radius across timing, route, power, PV, DFT, package, and tapeout manifest.

• Turns recurring failures into methodology guardrails, dashboards, or checklist items.

Closure note template

STAFF / PRINCIPAL CLOSURE NOTE

Context:
  stage: <pre-CTS | post-CTS | post-route | post-fill | signoff>
  tag: <database / netlist / SDC / library stack>
  failing metric: <exact report line>
  affected scope: <block / hierarchy / path group / power domain / region>

Hypotheses:
  H1: <most likely physical or constraint mechanism>
  H2: <competing explanation>
  H3: <methodology or input-data issue>

Decision:
  next experiment: <cheap check that can falsify H1>
  fix candidate: <minimal reversible change>
  rollback trigger: <metric that says the fix is wrong>
  regression set: <timing / route / power / PV / DFT / package>
  escalation owner: <team or reviewer>

Tradeoffs a senior engineer must discuss

Technical tradeoff

Floorplan quality is the earliest predictor of place-and-route pain. Explain not only the preferred fix, but what margin or schedule you are spending to get it.

Cross-team tradeoff

• What must RTL, synthesis, CAD, STA, DFT, package, IP, or foundry agree to before this decision is final?

• Which artifact becomes the source of truth after the decision: report, waiver, manifest, ECO script, or methodology deck?

• What is the cost of being wrong: one rerun, ECO churn, mask risk, performance loss, or silicon escape?

Leadership communication

"The current blocker is <metric> in <corner/mode/stage>. The leading cause is <mechanism>. I recommend <fix> because it is bounded and reversible. The regression surface is <domains>. If it fails, we escalate to <owner> with <evidence>."

Key takeaways

• Always connect the concept back to a measurable signoff artifact.

• A fix is not complete until you can name the regression checks.

Common pitfalls

• Optimizing by habit instead of reading the current report.

• Forgetting that a local fix can regress timing, routing, power, or PV elsewhere.