Maybe relevant for this thread, is why we have decided at work not to use this discovery here or anything like it, and instead apply an external watchdog or drop the platform as a viable part of a product at work.
(At home I love to play around with this a lot, only mesh is still a bit to dicy for my applications).
During recent events it became clear that Particle management seems likely to only use HW watchdogs internally for system monitoring to ensure system integrity. Fair enough.
As product designers with a Particle module included, we are obligated to decide for our selves in our designs, how to monitor the functionality of the wider system, and when and how to power up/down and reset different parts of the board including this module with our App on it. I am used to the main MCU having a HW watchdog for this.
The Particle system can never know what functionality the App is aiming to achieve in the wider system, the situational importance of it to the users of that functionality, and therefore what is considered acceptable, critical or fatal in that context. Only the App made by the product designer on the module can “know” those specifics.
So when the platform do not expose a HW watchdog to this App, it should be fair to openly discuss external watchdogs on this forum, and how to achieve product design goals with it.
Sorry, if this is obvious to everyone else, but I just recently realised this after many many weeks on the forum and the docs this and earlier years, trying to find out why there was no HW watchdog exposed to the application, why pulling the RST pin or now the EN pin do not always get the module online again, and what it takes to achieve it.
So far this is the best approach I have seen on the forum for the needs of the projects I am looking at now: