I stay away from foundries and technologies which are
so unreliable that you must make aging a "design
problem". And if you intend to stick with this one be
really sure you understand, and comply with, the
bogus "use model" which has to be shrink-fit to the
crappy reliability in order for that "reliability" to be
advertised. If you break out from that envelope then
the aging models aren't even themselves to be relied
upon. Talking reduced max temp, limited hours per
day, shave, shave, shave just so they can claim a
performance edge at t=0 and make you, not their
process and manufacturing people, pay the price.
Are you on the right side of their arbitrary bulldooky?
Best be sure.
You can bet that the foundry has packed the "aging"
models with lies, to cover up the Big Lie that their
technology is long term reliable. If it was, there would
be no need for this.
If the foundry demands aging analysis then they should
have provided you instructions about setting it up -
this is more about them, than the Cadence forms "out
of the box". Only foundry knows (or makes up) aging
data and what aspects are covered by any modeling.