Radar Simulator Vs Hardware Claim Boundary

Purpose

State exactly what simulation evidence proves and what still requires qualified physical measurement or safety review. This workflow turns the concern into a traceable engineering contract for the AERIS-10 project, while keeping simulations, software behavior, and physical measurements clearly distinguished.

Required inputs

Inspect 5_Simulations, lab notes, report templates, and integration docs. Gather the authoritative interface/schema, the selected board or bitstream revision, existing tests, and the expected result. Prefer synthetic input vectors, simulator outputs, host mocks, and de-energized design inspection.

Workflow

1. Trace 5_Simulations, lab notes, report templates, and integration docs and record source paths, board/design revision, input/output ownership, and the existing validation entry points.
2. Define pass/fail invariants for state exactly what simulation evidence proves and what still requires qualified physical measurement or safety review.; explicitly document units, widths, timing assumptions, safe defaults, and unsupported states where relevant.
3. Exercise Simulation-only result used in release note, missing calibration, and divergent hardware revision with deterministic simulation or mocked hardware. Include normal, boundary, malformed, reset/cancellation, and failure cases without relying on uncontrolled physical targets.
4. Produce An evidence classification guide and report review checklist. Run the narrow test and relevant regression suite, capture actual outputs, and separate verified findings from assumptions requiring qualified hardware review.

Validation checklist

• The requirement is represented as an explicit, repeatable assertion or review criterion.
• Boundary values and at least one injected failure are included.
• Units, revision, data origin, and interface timing are stated where they change interpretation.
• Test results cite the exact command/tool run and repository revision.
• Simulation/mock evidence is not misrepresented as hardware measurement or certification.
• RF, power, motion, or external-interface tests stop when the approved safety envelope is unknown or violated.

Required output

Deliver An evidence classification guide and report review checklist. Attach the paths reviewed, fixture or simulation identifiers, test commands and observed results, unresolved safety/compliance questions, and a clear distinction between code-level evidence and physical verification still required.

Boundaries and failure handling

Use synthetic inputs, host tests, simulation, or de-energized inspection wherever possible. Physical RF or powered hardware work requires qualified supervision, an approved lab procedure, regional compliance review, and functioning safety/thermal interlocks. Do not bypass an interlock, increase transmitter power or range as an objective, or turn signal-processing workflows into instructions for targeting people. If the design revision, emissions permission, termination, cooling, or measurement setup is uncertain, stop and document the blocker.

Trigger examples

• Positive: A maintainer needs to state exactly what simulation evidence proves and what still requires qualified physical measurement or safety review..
• Negative: Claiming physical performance or emissions compliance from simulation alone.