Skip to content
DenseChip
Learn
PracticeCode labInterview

DenseChip

Navigate

Menu

LearnPracticeCode labInterview

Tools

All toolsSV editorCode repoResume
DenseChip

Practice, courses, and chip-design tools in one focused workspace.

LearnPracticeCode labInterviewToolsLearning paths

© 2026 DenseChip

AboutRoadmapCareersInternshipsFAQContactPrivacyTerms
Skip to lesson

Course contents

  • How to Use This Course
  • Reading Path
  • CDC/RDC Glossary
  • CDC/RDC Metrics Reference
  • CDC/RDC Interview Prep
  • CDC/RDC Signoff Cheatsheet
  • Clock Domains and Failure Modes8
  • Metastability and Synchronizers16
  • CDC Protocols and Handshakes16
  • Reconvergence and Gray Coding16
  • Reset Domain Crossing16
  • Architecture and Design Rules16
  • CDC Signoff Methodology24
  • RDC Signoff16
  • Debug and Case Studies11
  • CDC and RDC Interview Prep30
  • Capstone: Sign Off a Multi-clock Peripheral4
Loading lesson

←CDC & RDC
  1. Topics
  2. CDC & RDC
  3. CDC/RDC Metrics Reference

CDC / RDC SignoffAll levels

CDC/RDC Metrics Reference

Signoff metrics and counts a dashboard shows: what each means, what it does not prove, and how it is misread.

Dashboards steer signoff, so every number on them must be read honestly. Each metric below states what it means, what it does not prove, and the misreading that recurs most often. No thresholds or targets appear here: project policy sets those from its own risk analysis, and any number quoted without its setup version and revision is decoration. The dashboard lessons teach what to track, honest metrics, and trend reading.

The metrics

Metric

What it means

What it does NOT prove

How it is misread

Open findings by class

Unresolved structural findings grouped by violation class: where defect risk concentrates.

That the classes are complete or the setup is right; a misconfigured run reports cleanly.

Celebrating a falling total while the highest-severity class stays flat.

Fixed versus waived

Whether progress comes from design changes or from accepted risk.

That waived items are safe; safety lives in the waiver evidence, not the count.

A rising closed count driven by waivers presented as design improvement.

Waived with owner

Waived findings each naming an accountable owner and a date.

Technical correctness; ownership tracks accountability, not safety.

Full ownership coverage mistaken for full risk coverage.

Waiver age and revision currency

How old each waiver is and whether it still applies to the current revision.

That a fresh waiver is a good waiver; recent only means recently reviewed.

Stale waivers on a changed design counted as closed risk.

Open owners

Who holds the remaining work: every open item names an owner and a date.

That owners agree or that dates are achievable; it tracks assignment only.

An empty unowned queue read as consensus when owners were never asked.

Constraint changes since last review

Whether clocks, groups, exceptions, or bounds moved under the results.

That unchanged constraints are correct constraints; stability is not validity.

Identical trends across a constraint change presented as continuity.

Setup version per run

The tool, rule-set, and intent revision behind each run: whether runs are comparable at all.

Anything about the design; it qualifies the comparison, not the result.

Two runs with different setups plotted as one trend line.

Runs compared (delta noise)

How much of the run-to-run difference is setup and naming churn rather than design change.

That a quiet delta is a clean design; silence can be a broken diff.

A zero-delta week celebrated without checking the run actually covered the design.

Formal and simulation evidence coverage

Which crossings carry protocol proofs or stress results beyond the structural report.

Full state-space closure; bounded proofs and sampled simulations both have stated limits.

Structural clean plus a passing smoke test called fully verified.

Closure burn-down and residual risk

Open critical items over time against the milestone, with waived risk stated separately.

That the line reaches zero by the milestone; projections are not results.

Extrapolating the burn-down past unowned or blocked items.

The most expensive misreading is comparing runs across a setup change. Before quoting any trend, confirm the setup version is constant across the window; if it moved, re-baseline first and say so on the dashboard.

Check yourself Open critical findings fall from forty to zero in a week with no RTL changes. Which two metrics distinguish a triumph from a bookkeeping exercise?

Fixed versus waived (were they fixed or permitted?) and setup version per run plus constraint changes (did the run or the intent move under the count?).

Related topics

  • Course Hub

  • CDC Signoff Dashboard

  • Glossary

Previous

4 / 179

Next: CDC/RDC Interview Prep

Up next

Up nextCDC/RDC Interview Prep

Sign in to save progress

Practice this lessonPrevious lessonReport an error

See also

  • How to Use This Course
  • Reading Path
  • CDC/RDC Signoff Cheatsheet