Lineage, or it didn't happen

Ask a vendor a simple question about the IP you just licensed: which requirement does this always-block serve? If the answer is a meeting, you have a problem that will surface at the worst possible time - during bring-up, under schedule pressure, three layers of abstraction away from the original decision.

The chain

Every artifact in a VoskenAI release package carries its lineage:

requirement  →  architecture  →  micro-arch spec  →  RTL  →  testbench  →  release
REQ-FUNC-001    subsystem map     component spec      .sv      UVM env      signed pkg

Each link is explicit and machine-checkable. A requirement ID appears in the architecture element that satisfies it; the architecture element appears in the component spec; the component spec names the RTL module; the verification collateral names both. The release manifest hashes every file, and the package ships signed.

This is not documentation written after the fact. The chain exists because the development system cannot proceed without it - each pipeline stage consumes the previous stage’s artifacts by reference, so the references are load-bearing, not decorative.

What it buys you

During evaluation. You can audit scope before you commit. If a feature matters to you, find its requirement; if there is no requirement, the feature does not exist, whatever the datasheet implies.

During integration. When a port behaves unexpectedly, you walk from the port to its component spec to its requirement and learn whether you found a bug or a documented decision. The difference is usually a week of debugging.

During change. When you ask for a modification, the lineage shows the blast radius: which blocks, which tests, which proofs must move. Quotes stop being guesses.

During audit. Safety and security reviews want evidence that what was specified is what was built. A hash-chained, requirement-indexed package is that evidence in native form, not a reconstruction.

The uncomfortable part

A lineage chain is also a confession mechanism. It records what was not done - the requirement marked deferred, the toggle coverage gap with its written waiver, the benchmark that only holds under stated conditions. We consider that a feature. An IP package that admits its boundaries is one you can plan around; one that claims completeness without evidence is one you discover the boundaries of in silicon.

Request a sample package and check the chain yourself. Pick any file, follow it back to the requirement that caused it to exist. If a link is missing, we want to know - that is a defect by our own definition.