Is this a static 1 hazard?

Question

Here the minterms of the SOP representation are ~A~C + AC (XNOR gate). However is there a static 1 hazard between the two terms? When the expression changes from ~A~C to AC, there could be small period where A goes from ~A to A but C has not moved from ~C to C. This would cause an output of 0 for a brief period of time, before the value settles at 1. From the definition this would seem like a Static 1 hazard. However, it doesn't seem like this can be removed with an extra minterm? Does that mean that all static hazards can't be removed with extra terms. Or am I mistaken as to what a static hazard means?

Edit: It seems there is some ambiguity about the definition of a static hazard. The definition I used was this : a static hazard happens when an input transition which should not trigger an output transition makes the output change momentarily, i.e. it generates a single spurious pulse. However it seems there is another way of classifying hazards as in this document. According to this, the XNOR function causes something called a function hazard, and static hazards are for when a single input changes.

Answer 1

I can demonstrate both static and dynamic hazards (aka metastable conditions or "races") with ideal discrete gates (0 delay, and output impedance) to make one XOR gate driven by an asynchronous counter made from 2 cascaded D FFs.

XOR gates are great for detecting race conditions but not avoiding them. Usage must factor this reality and sample and hold or synchronize with delayed clock or filter the glitch with an RC=T value and buffer with a gate which adds minimal delay.

The XOR glitch is also popular as zero-crossing detectors and frequency doublers and the glitch width can be extended with additonal RC delays.