I have got the answer of my own question, so I am here posting it.
Inconclusive Assertions are natural part of Formal Verification. So Verification Sign off is still possible, if you have got the "Required Proof Bound Depth". (It is similar to coverage in Simulation based Verification, where you can still sign off the verification, if you have got the required coverage numbers). To get the "Required Proof Bound Depth", one must contact the design team.
Bounded Proof Depth > Required Proof Depth => Equivalent to Full Proof
Bounded Proof can be due to multiple reasons.
- State Space of the Design and/or Assertion
- Complexity of the Design and/or Assertion
- Tool Options (Effort Level Run Time Memory Constraint Algorithm)
So your approach should be to get "Required Proof Bound".
Now to get Required Proof Bound, various options are there.
- Tool/Resource Options (Effort Level, Run Time, Memory Constraint)
- State Space & Complexity Options
- Modify/Add Constraints
- Blackboxing
- Cut-points
- Modify Assertions
- Alter Parameter values for Parameterized Designs
- Simulation Based Reset State
- Guided Proofs
- Abstractions
Still, there is no assurance to get required proof bound, through this approach. So typically, Formal Verification standalone is not used, but it is used, rather as a supplement to the Simulation Based Verification
Yes, comparing reference model and DUT output, can increase the complexity, so reference model should be used minimally, if required.