State what the model demonstrates and what implementation evidence remains. Check the known v1 security weakness as a separate readiness condition.
What to notice. Model consistency feeds readiness; open items remain visible; the solution key follows the learner's written statement.
The PASS covers the modelled contracts; the outstanding implementation and security evidence still controls what can be claimed.
Run your checks on one fresh design record. Demonstrate a failing version before correcting it. Write a readiness statement that includes implementation timing, crossing, power-aware and package evidence still required, and the v1 security weakness. Then compare your diagnoses and checks with Solutions.
Your stage 1 to 4 artefacts, frozen as one baseline.
The model limits: what a Python model and manifest can and cannot show about timing, crossings, power-aware behaviour and package.
The known security weakness in the v1 secure partition.
Deliverable. One script that reads every artefact and prints a single PASS line, plus a written readiness statement with the open items and an owner for each.
Pass criterion. The script prints PASS on a fresh copy of the baseline and fails on a copy you damage; the statement names the implementation evidence still required and the security item as open.
The script output on the fresh baseline and on the damaged copy.
The readiness statement.
The open-item list with an owner and a closure condition for each.
Keep your diagnosis in your own report. After the stage checks, compare it with Solutions and run the provided injection checks.