Synthesis Whiteboard Framework: Debug Playbook

Debug playbook

Debug Playbook for Synthesis Whiteboard Framework focuses on answer completeness score, mechanism-first explanation quality. The goal is to connect observed QoR movement to mechanism, ownership, and regression risk.

Synthesis debug finds the first causal drift, not the loudest downstream symptom.

Root-cause tree

ROOT-CAUSE TREE — Synthesis Whiteboard Framework

answer completeness score, mechanism-first explanation quality regressed
        |
   same RTL/constraints tag?
     /              \
   no                yes
   |                  |
input drift      transform side-effect
 /    \             /         \
SDC    libs      mapping      physical estimate
diff   diff      choice       mismatch

1. Freeze baseline and regressed run manifests.

2. Verify RTL/SDC/library deltas before transform tuning.

3. Classify issue: constraints, mapping choice, physical estimate, or ECO side effect.

4. Pick one minimal reversible change.

5. Re-run full timing/area/power checks with ownership signoff.

Review memo template

STAFF SYNTHESIS REVIEW MEMO — Synthesis Interview Prep / Synthesis Whiteboard Framework

1. Symptom
   - Watched metric: answer completeness score, mechanism-first explanation quality
   - Affected compile run: <tag/build ID>
   - Impacted path/class: <critical group / power lane / area lane>
   - Database tags: <RTL, SDC, libs, switches>

2. Mechanism hypothesis
   - Primary mechanism: Strong synthesis answers narrate constraint intent, mapping path, QoR evidence, and regression risk in a fixed reusable structure.
   - Competing hypothesis: <constraint drift, mapping choice, physical estimate mismatch>
   - Missing evidence: <report diff, dashboard trend, ownership board>

3. Proposed action
   - Minimal reversible change: <constraint patch, compile knob, ECO cell move>
   - Expected movement: <timing / area / power delta>
   - Regression risk: hold, power spike, leakage drift, formal mismatch

4. Signoff
   - Re-run artifact: whiteboard template, answer rubric, mock interview log
   - Required owners: candidate, interviewer, panel lead
   - Final decision: merge, rollback, or escalate

Synthesis deep dive

Interview readiness comes from repeatable QoR reasoning under pressure.

Concept diagram

INTERVIEW ANSWER SHAPE

context -> metric -> mechanism -> fix -> regression -> ownership

Metric graph

PANEL SCORING

clarity      ███████
mechanism    ██████
regression   █████

Reports and artifacts

• mock scorecard

• scenario debrief

• Q&A coverage

• framework adherence

Mini case study

Candidate improved by replacing tool-command answers with evidence-driven closure narratives.

Debug branches

• State assumptions first

• Defend option tradeoffs

• Close with rollback/regression

Senior review question

Ask: what evidence proves this QoR move is real and stable?

Key takeaways

• State exact run context (RTL, SDC, libs, switches) with every QoR claim.

• Re-run timing, area, and power regressions after each synthesis ECO.

Common pitfalls

• Comparing runs with mismatched constraints or library views.

• Timing-only fixes that violate power or area budgets.

• Skipping equivalence checks after structural changes.

Principal synthesis review addendum

Strong synthesis answers narrate constraint intent, mapping path, QoR evidence, and regression risk in a fixed reusable structure.

Metric: answer completeness score, mechanism-first explanation quality