Skip to content

Design decision: Matter integration via hub bridge (SWARCH-WOHL-006)#15

Merged
avrabe merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
decision/matter-bridge-architecture
May 22, 2026
Merged

Design decision: Matter integration via hub bridge (SWARCH-WOHL-006)#15
avrabe merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
decision/matter-bridge-architecture

Conversation

@avrabe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@avrabe avrabe commented May 22, 2026

Summary

Records a tracked ASPICE design decision: Wohl reaches the Matter ecosystem through the hub acting as a Matter Bridge, with sensors keeping the lean, verified CCSDS firmware — they are not native Matter devices.

Decision reached after an independent architecture review (CCSDS vs Matter on the sensor: footprint, battery, BOM, certification, and the impact on Wohl's verification story).

New artifacts

ID Type Role
SWREQ-MATTER-001 sw-req Matter ecosystem interoperability via hub bridge — derives-from SYSREQ-WOHL-006
SWARCH-WOHL-006 sw-arch-component (SWE.2) The design decision record — allocated-from SWREQ-MATTER-001

The decision

Option A (chosen) — sensors emit CCSDS; hub translates to Matter, presents each sensor as a Matter bridged endpoint.
Option B (rejected) — sensors implement the full Matter stack over Thread (standalone Matter devices).

Rationale captured in SWARCH-WOHL-006:

  • Verification (decisive) — a Matter + OpenThread stack is hundreds of KB of allocating C/C++, outside Kani/Verus. Option B dissolves the "Verified. Always on." differentiator; Option A keeps verification end-to-end.
  • Footprint — Option B forces ~16× flash / ~32× RAM more sensor silicon.
  • Certification — Option B needs Matter cert per sensor SKU; Option A needs at most one hub bridge cert.
  • Transport — sub-GHz sensors can never be Matter-native (Matter is IP/Thread/Wi-Fi only), so the hub bridge is mandatory regardless — Option A is the only uniform architecture.
  • Market check — cheap "Matter" sensors are mostly Zigbee bridged via a vendor hub; genuine Matter-over-Thread sensors ship oversized batteries. Low price = volume + amortized cert, not cheap engineering.

Verification

  • rivet validate — PASS. The one new warning is the standard lifecycle-coverage warning every approved sw-req carries (no verification artifacts yet). CI's rivet-validate job re-checks on this PR.
  • Traceability: SWARCH-WOHL-006SWREQ-MATTER-001SYSREQ-WOHL-006.

Linked work

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The stakeholder/architect decided (2026-05-22) that Wohl reaches the
Matter ecosystem via the HUB as a Matter Bridge — sensors keep the
lean, verified CCSDS firmware and are NOT native Matter devices.
Decision reached after an independent architecture review.

Two new traced artifacts:
- SWREQ-MATTER-001 (sw-req) — Matter ecosystem interoperability via
  hub bridge; derives-from SYSREQ-WOHL-006 (alert dispatch and
  notification).
- SWARCH-WOHL-006 (sw-arch-component, SWE.2) — the design decision
  record: Option A (CCSDS + hub bridge) chosen over Option B
  (Matter-native sensors), with full rationale — verification
  preservation, sensor footprint, certification cost, the sub-GHz
  transport constraint, and the market check on cheap "Matter"
  sensors. Allocated-from SWREQ-MATTER-001.

rivet validate: PASS (the one new warning is the standard
lifecycle-coverage warning shared by every approved sw-req).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@avrabe avrabe force-pushed the decision/matter-bridge-architecture branch from b57cf3c to efb032e Compare May 22, 2026 17:52
@avrabe avrabe merged commit c0fa1f7 into main May 22, 2026
5 checks passed
@avrabe avrabe deleted the decision/matter-bridge-architecture branch May 22, 2026 18:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant