Signoff vs Implementation Views: Debug Playbook

Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Signoff vs Implementation Views focuses on view delta WNS, parasitic corner mismatch, SPEF vs signoff RC gap. The goal is to connect the observable symptom to timing mechanism, ownership, and regression risk.

STA debug is a search for the FIRST deviation, not the loudest downstream symptom. Hold failures after setup ECO are a classic example of fixing the wrong layer first.

Root-cause tree

ROOT-CAUSE TREE — Signoff vs Implementation Views

view delta WNS, parasitic corner mismatch, SPEF vs signoff RC gap looks wrong
        |
   same netlist tag?
     /        \
   no          yes
   |            |
 view/SDC     real path or
 mismatch     constraint bug
 /    \           |
lib   SPEF    delay breakdown
diff  diff    cell vs net

1. Freeze the failing netlist tag, SDC revision, and SPEF corner.

2. Find the first constraint or delay anomaly on the critical path.

3. Map the path to launch/capture clocks and path group.

4. Classify the failure: constraint bug, view mismatch, cell delay, net delay, or SI.

5. Prove the mechanism with one reduced path or isolated scenario.

6. Patch the smallest owner-controlled fix and rerun setup, hold, and MMMC.

Review memo template

STAFF STA REVIEW MEMO — MMMC Signoff / Signoff vs Implementation Views

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: view delta WNS, parasitic corner mismatch, SPEF vs signoff RC gap
   - Failing scenario: <corner/mode/view>
   - Path group: <reg2reg / in2reg / reg2out / async>
   - Database tags: <netlist, SDC, SPEF, lib>

2. Mechanism hypothesis
   - Primary mechanism: Implementation and signoff use different parasitic corners and analysis views; comparing them without mapping causes false panic or false confidence.
   - Competing hypothesis: <constraint bug, view mismatch, cell delay, net delay, SI>
   - Missing evidence: <report_timing, clock report, constraint trace>

3. Proposed action
   - Minimal reversible change: <SDC fix, sizing, VT swap, route, useful skew>
   - Expected metric movement: <WNS/TNS delta>
   - Regression risk: hold, other corners, SI, leakage

4. Signoff
   - Re-run artifact: view comparison report, SPEF tag manifest, delta slack log
   - Required owners: STA lead, PD owner, extraction owner
   - Final decision: ECO, waive, constraint fix, or escalate

STA deep dive

Signoff WNS is the minimum across the full scenario matrix.

Concept diagram

MMMC

corners (ss/tt/ff) x modes (func/test) x views (signoff RC)
= scenario set -> min(WNS) is signoff

Metric graph

WNS HEATMAP BY CORNER

        ss    tt    ff
setup  -80   +10   +5
hold   -15   -2    -8

Reports and artifacts

• per-corner WNS

• mode summary

• lib map audit

• view delta

Mini case study

Passed TT typical but failed SS hold — signoff matrix was incomplete; added low-voltage mode.

Debug branches

• Isolate failing scenario first

• Never compare unlike SPEF tags

Senior review question

Ask: what corner/mode/view proves this topic is closed or failing?

Key takeaways

• State corner, mode, view, and database tag with every slack claim.

• Run setup and hold plus MMMC regression after every ECO.

Common pitfalls

• Comparing STA runs with different SPEF or SDC tags.

• Broad false_path to green-wash violations.

• Setup-only ECO without hold check.

Principal STA review addendum

Implementation and signoff use different parasitic corners and analysis views; comparing them without mapping causes false panic or false confidence.

Metric: view delta WNS, parasitic corner mismatch, SPEF vs signoff RC gap