are you serious? i just selected the wrongly timed path and set as false paths it worked.
I have several issues with this statement based on similar statements I've heard from others in the past. Specifically, this is not an insult to you -- I suspect everyone has had a moment similar to this.
This is a very short statement that suggests that you want to be seen as successful in your efforts while bringing ridicule to anyone who would say otherwise. Both are traps. If you hear other people say a similar statement, be wary. Again, this is based on my experiences on both sides of this statements.
1.) "are you serious?" -- this suggests that you are actively hostile towards any information that doesn't make you appear good. (to random people you don't really know on the internet.)
2.) "it worked" -- This is the most terrifying part. There is a concept of "survivor bias" and "test coverage" that come into play here. Logic -- especially if you don't have internal visibility -- can be very complex. As an example, there are cases where you could simply connect an input to '0' instead of the correct output signal and the design would pass simulation and even work in the field.
3.) "the wrongly timed path" -- this doesn't sound like you understand the issue. I would be suspicious that you can correctly identify false paths, multi-cycle paths, or other exceptions.
4.) "and set as false paths" -- false path is almost never the correct choice.
From my perspective, your comments suggest that you attempted a build. The results gave a -1ns slack. In response you disabled optimizations for such nets -- allowing much worse than -1ns -- then you tested something that might not have any coverage of the signal on a single prototype. Both issues would make your tests invalid, unless you only need the prototype, never do anything outside of what you have tested, and also don't change the voltage/temperature on the device.