01
Scattered context
Every session spans schematics, datasheets, stackoverflow, forums, lab notebooks, and whatever the last engineer remembers. None of it is in one place when the board fails.
UC 1819 Venture Lab NEXT · Summer 2026
A debugger that understands your board.
Upload schematics, BOMs, and board files. Faradyne builds the board context, reasons over rails, buses, test points, and measurements — then guides you to the next best probe instead of another round of guesswork.
Built for bring-up and bench debug — schematics in, next measurement out.
FARADYNE · LIVE DEBUG SESSION
01SYMPTOM
The problem
Debug time disappears into everything except debugging.
02
Hours spent proving the obvious
When you don't know where the fault is, you rule out possibilities one by one — and that brute-force hunt can take hours, sometimes weeks.
03
Generic AI can’t see the board
A chatbot can explain I2C. It doesn’t know your pull-ups, your test points, your rail tree, or which sensors share a reset line.
04
Risks surface at the bench
The bring-up blockers you hit in week three were visible in the design files all along. By then it’s a schedule slip — or a respin.
How it works
From design files to the next best measurement.
Faradyne turns the files you already have into a live board model, then reasons over it the way a senior engineer would — with evidence.
- 01
Ingest
Schematics, BOM, PCB layout, datasheets. Faradyne parses them into a single model: nets, parts, pins, packages, values.
- 02
Understand
Rails, buses, test points, and dependencies are resolved into a connectivity and power graph of your specific board.
- 03
Reason
Symptoms and measurements land on a causal graph. Every reading prunes hypotheses; every assumption is tracked.
- 04
Guide
One exact next measurement: which test point, what instrument, what to expect, and what each outcome means.
Capabilities
Built around how boards actually fail.
Not a chat window with electronics trivia — a set of engineering capabilities grounded in your design files.
01
Board model from design files
One queryable model of nets, parts, pins, rails, and test points — built from the files you already have.
02
Power-tree and rail reasoning
Knows which rail feeds what, through which regulator, and what dies downstream when it sags.
03
Bus-level fault localization
Distinguishes a dead segment from a dead device from a dead controller — before you pick up a probe.
04
Datasheet-grounded facts
Thresholds, pinouts, and limits come from the part's datasheet, with the page they came from.
05
Test-point-aware guidance
Recommendations name real test points and accessible pins on your board — not idealized nodes.
06
Causal graph traversal
Failure hypotheses follow the board's actual dependency structure, not a generic troubleshooting tree.
07
Bring-up risk register
A ranked list of what is most likely to waste bench time, generated before the board arrives.
08
Measurement-driven ranking
Each reading you enter reorders the hypothesis list. Evidence in, guesswork out.
Scope
Faradyne is a debugging instrument, not a design checker. It does not replace SI/PI analysis, thermal simulation, EMC testing, or DRC — it finds what will waste your bring-up time.
Why not a chatbot
Chatbots can explain electronics. Faradyne knows your board.
General models are useful for theory. Debugging a specific board needs the board.
A generic chatbot
Faradyne
No board graph — reasons from generic topology
Board-aware — reasons over your nets, rails, and parts
No knowledge of your test points
Names the exact test point or pin to probe
Measurements pasted as free text, then forgotten
Structured measurements that prune the hypothesis space
No provenance — confident numbers from nowhere
Every claim tagged: verified, measured, assumed, unverified, or in conflict
Restarts from zero every session
Board model, measurements, and findings persist across sessions
A real session
One symptom. One measurement. A ranked root cause.
This is what Faradyne actually returns — concise, board-specific, and honest about uncertainty. Step through the session.
SESSION · REV B BRING-UP
01 / 03
Engineer
I2C1 is completely dead. The MCU is running. None of the sensors respond.
Faradyne
Shared dependencies
U9, U10, U11 share SDA/SCL, pull-ups R12/R13, the 3V3 rail, and isolator U7. A shared dependency is far more likely than three simultaneous device faults.
- 3V3 rail at TP3UNVERIFIED
- Pull-ups R12/R13 (4.7 kΩ, from BOM)VERIFIED
- Isolator U7 side-2 supplyUNVERIFIED
- MCU I2C1 pin muxASSUMED
Symptom
Response grounded in: schematic rev B · BOM · U7 isolator datasheet p.7
Before the bench
Bring-up risks, surfaced before the board arrives.
Faradyne reviews the design files for the things most likely to waste bring-up time — unverifiable targets, missing test access, datasheet conflicts — and ranks them.
RISK REGISTER · 4 OPEN FINDINGS
| Finding | Evidence | Bring-up impact | Severity | Trust | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +5 V target unverifiable | FB divider uses an assumed R_bot | Expected-vs-measured on the rail will be unreliable | TIME-SINK | ASSUMED | Confirm R_bot value before release |
| U4 EN strap conflicts with datasheet | Schematic leaves EN floating; datasheet p.14 requires a pull-up | 3V3 rail may never come up | BLOCKER | CONFLICT | Resolve EN strap before first power-on |
| RESET_N has no test access | Net routed on inner layers only, no pad or via exposed | Reset release can't be confirmed without rework | TIME-SINK | VERIFIED | Add a probe wire at R31 during assembly |
| I2C2 pull-ups on isolated side only | R24/R25 sit after isolator U8; side 1 has no pull-up path | Side-1 master sees a floating bus | BLOCKER | VERIFIED | Review isolator biasing before bring-up |
Every finding links back to the schematic net, BOM line, or datasheet page it came from.
Why believe it
Every claim carries its source.
If an input is uncertain, the finding says confirm first. No bare numbers. No fake certainty.
The five states
- VERIFIED
- Stated in a design file or datasheet Faradyne has actually parsed.
- MEASURED
- Backed by a reading you took on this board, at a named test point.
- ASSUMED
- A defensible default — flagged so you know to confirm it before trusting downstream math.
- UNVERIFIED
- Not yet grounded. Faradyne will ask for the measurement instead of guessing.
- CONFLICT
- Two sources disagree. Resolving it becomes the recommended next step.
In practice
Claim 01
VERIFIEDU4 V_OUT = 3.30 V ± 2%
TLV75533 datasheet · p.14
Claim 02
ASSUMED+5 V expected at TP1 = 4.98 V
FB divider: R_top 10 kΩ (BOM) · R_bot assumed 1.6 kΩ
→ Confirm R_bot before trusting expected-vs-measured.
Engineers don’t need an oracle. They need an instrument that shows its work.
The team
The team you want in your corner when a board won't come up.
Faradyne is built by the pair a hard bring-up actually needs — the electrical engineer who lives at the bench, and the computer scientist who turns board context into a reasoning engine.
Shloka Shah
CO-FOUNDER · CEO
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
The electrical engineer. Shloka owns the bench truth: how boards actually fail, which measurement settles a hypothesis, and what an engineer actually needs next when a rail won't come up. She keeps every Faradyne finding honest to real hardware.
LinkedInLuv Patel
CO-FOUNDER · CTO
COMPUTER SCIENCE
The computer scientist. Luv builds the engine: the board model, the causal graph, and the measurement-driven reasoning that turns schematics, BOMs, and datasheets into the next best probe.
LinkedInEarly access
Bring your next board up with less guesswork.
We're onboarding a small group of hardware teams this summer. Tell us what you're debugging and we'll reach out.