STA Mastery · All levels

Path Depth Sensitivity: Debug Playbook

Debug Playbook for Path Depth Sensitivity.

Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Path Depth Sensitivity focuses on short-path hold margin, long-path setup margin, depth bucket WNS. 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

diagram
ROOT-CAUSE TREE — Path Depth Sensitivity

short-path hold margin, long-path setup margin, depth bucket WNS 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

diagram
STAFF STA REVIEW MEMO — OCV, AOCV, POCV & Variation / Path Depth Sensitivity

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: short-path hold margin, long-path setup margin, depth bucket WNS
   - Failing scenario: <corner/mode/view>
   - Path group: <reg2reg / in2reg / reg2out / async>
   - Database tags: <netlist, SDC, SPEF, lib>

2. Mechanism hypothesis
   - Primary mechanism: Short paths see different variation pessimism than long paths; depth-aware models prevent both optimism and excess margin.
   - 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: path depth vs slack scatter, AOCV table dump, hold/setup split report
   - Required owners: STA owner, library owner
   - Final decision: ECO, waive, constraint fix, or escalate

STA deep dive

Variation policy is negotiated margin, not a tool checkbox.

Concept diagram

diagram
VARIATION STACK

nominal delay + OCV/AOCV/POCV margin = signoff delay

Metric graph

diagram
DERATE IMPACT ON WNS

OCV only     WNS -120ps
AOCV         WNS -45ps
POCV         WNS -60ps (policy dependent)

Reports and artifacts

  • derate table

  • AOCV depth report

  • POCV sigma

  • hold/setup split

Mini case study

Switched to AOCV without re-baselining hold — short paths failed min analysis.

Debug branches

  • Short paths for hold

  • Policy approval for derate changes

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

Short paths see different variation pessimism than long paths; depth-aware models prevent both optimism and excess margin.

Metric: short-path hold margin, long-path setup margin, depth bucket WNS