Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Hierarchy Abstraction Boundaries focuses on cross-boundary ECO count, abstraction violation escapes. The goal is to map symptoms to boundary contracts, owner actions, and regression-proof closure.

Integration debug is a search for the first contract break, not the loudest downstream failure signature.

Root-cause tree

ROOT-CAUSE TREE — Hierarchy Abstraction Boundaries

cross-boundary ECO count, abstraction violation escapes regressed
         |
   same baseline manifest?
      /           \
    no             yes
    |               |
version/collateral  real integration
mismatch            contract break
 /       \            |
inputs    env      isolate domain
drift     drift    and first failure

1. Freeze baseline manifest and owner matrix.

2. Find first failing boundary and earliest reproducible symptom.

3. Classify failure type: contract, collateral, implementation, or governance.

4. Prove with one reduced experiment.

5. Apply smallest owner-controlled fix.

6. Run focused verification and full cross-domain regression.

Review memo template

STAFF SOC REVIEW MEMO — Hierarchy & Budget Contracts / Hierarchy Abstraction Boundaries

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: cross-boundary ECO count, abstraction violation escapes
   - Failing integration boundary: <domain/interface>
   - Baseline manifest: <hash/tag>
   - Repro setup: <sim/emulation/fpga/silicon + fw tag>

2. Mechanism hypothesis
   - Primary mechanism: Abstraction boundaries define what each team exposes (timing models, interfaces, constraints) and what remains internal implementation detail.
   - Competing hypothesis: <contract drift, collateral mismatch, implementation bug, governance gap>
   - Missing evidence: <trace, report, checklist, signoff artifact>

3. Proposed action
   - Minimal reversible fix: <contract update, config patch, RTL fix, process guardrail>
   - Expected metric movement: <delta and scope>
   - Regression risk: timing, power, functionality, schedule

4. Signoff
   - Re-run artifact: interface timing model, hierarchy contract doc, abstraction waiver log
   - Required owners: integration lead, IP owner, STA lead
   - Final decision: close, waive (bounded), or escalate

SoC deep dive

Budget and ownership contracts are technical artifacts, not PM slides.

Concept diagram

HIERARCHY CONTRACT FLOW
partition -> block budget -> owner signoff -> integration checkpoint

Metric graph

BUDGET RISK TREND
open risks ████████
owned fixes ███████
unowned risks ██

Reports and artifacts

• budget delta dashboard

• ownership matrix

• milestone health report

• risk register

Mini case study

A timing overrun was solved only after budget ownership moved from shared to single-threaded.

Debug branches

• Validate contract revision

• Check owner signatures

• Audit milestone readiness

Senior review question

Ask: what baseline, owner, and artifact prove this topic is truly closed?

Key takeaways

• State baseline manifest and owner with every closure metric.

• Run cross-domain regression after every top-level fix.

Common pitfalls

• Comparing results across different manifests.

• Unowned issues slipping through review cycles.

• Waiving risks without expiry and validation plan.

Principal SoC review addendum

Abstraction boundaries define what each team exposes (timing models, interfaces, constraints) and what remains internal implementation detail.

Metric: cross-boundary ECO count, abstraction violation escapes