EIP complexity assessment

EIP-3651: Warm COINBASE

Assessed in Shanghai / Shapella. The score describes the EIP text available at the assessment cutoff, not the EIP as it stands today.

RetrospectiveShanghai / ShapellaAssessment cutoff 2022-03-04Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 6

Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: 2026-08-25 · Spec revision: 2022-01-30 · a6dfa1ed7b

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-3651 changes the EIP-2929 transaction access-set initialization so that the address returned by COINBASE starts warm. This changes the gas charged by the existing warm/cold account-access rules when an operation targets that address, while introducing no new opcode, transaction type, field, or persistent state transition.

6LowLow

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No
Plausible range: 6–6 (Low)
Assessment cutoff: 2022-03-04 · EIP revision a6dfa1ed7b (2022-01-30)

Score bands · Checklist revision 2

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

28 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 84.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the LLM total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No

The EIP text available at the assessment cutoff left material behavior unresolved. The affected criteria and the plausible total range record that uncertainty.

The assessor found no material behavior left unresolved by the EIP text at the cutoff.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-3651 Shanghai / Shapella: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactions	2	EIP-3651 directly depends on and modifies EIP-2929's transaction-scoped access-set mechanism. Coordinated regression testing of that mechanism and its account-access gas branches is required, but the interaction is limited to one set-initialization rule, matching score 2.	eip.md · Front matter and Motivation, lines 1-10 and 19-22 EIP-3651 explicitly requires EIP-2929 and identifies its access-list framework as the source of COINBASE's initially cold status. eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The proposal directly modifies the initialization of accessed_addresses defined by EIP-2929. supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - transaction initialization and Storage read changes, lines 47-65 EIP-2929 defines the set being modified and uses its membership to select gas charges for several account-targeting opcode families. Confidence: High Interacting EIPs: EIP-2929
EVM Gas rule changes	1	Adding COINBASE to the initially warm set updates the existing EIP-2929 warm/cold gas-accounting mechanism. It does not create a separate gas mechanism, matching score 1.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The initial accessed-address set is extended with the address returned by COINBASE. supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - Storage read changes, lines 60-65 EIP-2929 charges account-targeting operations differently according to whether the target is already in accessed_addresses. Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	Pre-existing warm/cold gas tests whose target is the block coinbase require updated expected gas or out-of-gas outcomes. That is a narrow subset of the EIP-2929 test space, matching score 1.	eip.md · Motivation and Specification, lines 19-25 Access to COINBASE changes from initially cold to initially warm under the EIP-2929 access-list framework. supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - Storage read changes, lines 60-65 Existing tests of account-targeting operations distinguish cold cost from warm cost using accessed_addresses membership. Confidence: High
Security risks	1	Incorrectly applying the new initial membership would produce divergent gas and out-of-gas outcomes, but the rule is self-contained and can be validated in isolation without changing a broader security invariant. This matches the localized score-1 anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The consensus gas outcome is changed through one localized addition to accessed_addresses initialization. eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 36-37 The proposal reports no known security considerations. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The EIP states that no security considerations are known; the nonzero score reflects only the implementation-sensitive consensus gas rule, not an identified exploit class.
Edge/boundary conditions	1	A single boundary-prone mechanism changes: execution at gas thresholds between the cold and warm charges now succeeds for operations targeting COINBASE. This is one localized class of gas-boundary cases, matching score 1 rather than multiple independent mechanisms.	eip.md · Motivation and Specification, lines 19-25 The proposal moves COINBASE from the initially cold case to the initially warm case. supporting/eip-2929.md · Parameters and Storage read changes, lines 38-65 The inherited mechanism has distinct cold and warm charges of 2600 and 100 gas for account-targeting operations. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The EIP does not enumerate boundary tests; the score treats the warm/cold gas threshold as the single introduced boundary mechanism.

Show 23 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No new opcode is added, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 COINBASE is referenced as an existing opcode whose returned address initializes the access set; no opcode is introduced.
Modified opcodes	No opcode result or non-gas behavior is modified. The affected account operations only receive a different existing gas branch, which this anchor explicitly excludes, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 16-25 The returned value and behavior of COINBASE are unchanged; only the initial warm status of that address changes. supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - Storage read changes, lines 60-65 The resulting differences for account-targeting opcodes are gas-cost differences under the existing warm/cold rule.
Added precompiles	No precompile is added, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The complete specification adds an address to a transaction-scoped set and introduces no precompile.
Modified precompiles	No existing precompile behavior or gas schedule is modified, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The rule names only the COINBASE-returned address and changes no precompile logic or gas schedule. supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - transaction initialization, lines 51-55 EIP-2929 already initializes all precompile addresses as warm; EIP-3651 leaves that rule intact.
Added system contracts	No system contract is added, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The proposal only changes initialization of accessed_addresses and introduces no contract.
Modified system contracts	No pre-existing system contract is modified or affected, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 24-31 The proposal changes COINBASE address warmth because the recipient is already loaded; it specifies no direct or indirect change to system-contract code or state.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	Only the initial membership of accessed_addresses changes. No state access or gas charge is moved relative to an access inside any opcode, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The change occurs when the transaction access set is initialized, not within execution of an opcode. supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - Storage read changes, lines 60-71 The inherited rule continues to charge gas and update the map at opcode execution time; EIP-3651 does not alter that ordering.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob gas accounting is introduced or modified, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 16-25 The proposal is limited to warming COINBASE through accessed-address initialization and specifies no blob-gas rule.
State gas accounting changes	The proposal changes execution-gas treatment of an account access, not any state-writing gas cost, budget, reservoir, or spill rule. Score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The sole normative change initializes an account address as warm; it does not charge for writing state.
New EVM gas refund	No gas-refund mechanism is introduced, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The complete specification only adds COINBASE to accessed_addresses and defines no refund behavior.
New transaction types	No transaction type is introduced, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The rule applies at the start of transaction execution without defining a new transaction type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	Transaction validity and intrinsic gas calculation are unchanged. Different execution gas outcomes do not trigger this validity-specific anchor, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The proposal changes execution-time accessed-address initialization and states no validity or intrinsic-gas rule.
New block / header fields	No new block or header field is introduced, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 24-31 The proposal consumes the existing COINBASE address during transaction initialization and introduces no block or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No RLP, SSZ, or other interface-level encoding changes are introduced, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The normative change is internal execution initialization and specifies no transaction, block, or interface encoding.
Block syncing changes	No block RLP validation or syncing mechanism changes, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The complete normative change concerns transaction execution and defines no block RLP validation rule.
New fork activation mechanism	The fork applies an ordinary per-transaction rule and requires no special activation-block transition. Score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The specified initialization occurs at the start of transaction execution, not as a state or internal-variable modification on the fork-activation block.
Engine API changes	No Engine API field or endpoint is introduced, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The specification adds no field, endpoint, or communication mechanism and is confined to transaction access-set initialization.
Transition-tool interface changes	The proposal requires no new transition-tool field or interface mechanism; it only changes how an existing execution-context value initializes an internal set. Score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The rule uses the address already returned by COINBASE and adds no input or output field.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Relevant gas expectations may change, but pre-existing tests are not required to gain an additional invariant or assertion. Score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The proposal changes an internal transaction-scoped set initialization but specifies no new test-visible output that unrelated tests must additionally assert.
New test-framework primitives	Existing execution and gas-expectation primitives suffice to target the coinbase address and observe the changed charge. No new expectation, modifier, or framework-level primitive is required, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 16-25 The feature combines an existing block-context address, transaction access set, and warm/cold gas behavior without specifying a new testing abstraction. supporting/eip-2929.md · Test Cases, lines 132-145 The inherited warm/cold mechanism is testable through ordinary account-access opcodes, repetitions, reverts, and gas outcomes.
Performance risks	Adding one already-available address to an existing initialization set introduces no new workload and, on the proposal's stated rationale, does not underprice an additional account load. No distinct performance validation mechanism is indicated, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Abstract and Rationale, lines 16-17 and 27-31 The proposal aligns warm treatment with the stated actual read cost and explains that COINBASE is already loaded to receive rewards and fees. Uncertainty: The package provides rationale rather than benchmark data, but it specifies no new processing path whose performance must be validated.
Cryptography	No cryptography is introduced or modified, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The specified access-set initialization contains no cryptographic operation or primitive.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	Read together with its explicit dependency, the EIP determines the warm/cold result for constructible cases without requiring a new cross-client choice. Score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-25 The proposal explicitly identifies the initialization time, the accessed_addresses set, and the value to add as the address returned by COINBASE. supporting/eip-2929.md · Specification - transaction initialization and Storage read changes, lines 47-65 The required EIP defines the transaction scope, initialization semantics, membership check, charge, and update behavior of accessed_addresses.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@a6dfa1ed7b EIPS/eip-3651.md committed 2022-01-30 · information cutoff 2022-03-04
Current master · File history · blob 9b18c45611 · sha256 1795497b5d0c
Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/05-retrospective-complexity-assignment/outputs/fork-eips/shanghai/eip-3651.yaml · sha256 d811e6872aa9
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-2929.md

Compare EIP-3651 with other assessments All Shanghai / Shapella assessments

Criterion legend and glossary

Every stacked bar, comparison matrix, and criterion table on this site uses the same criterion colours, abbreviations, and order. Colour marks the criterion group; the abbreviation and name identify the criterion. Scores are 0–3 per criterion (4 is exceptional; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped).

EVM surface

Opcodes, precompiles, and system contracts that are added or modified.

OP+
Added opcodes
Introduces new opcodes
Score anchors
0
No new opcodes are introduced.
1
A new simple opcode is introduced (no data portion, no complex stack mechanics, and a constant gas cost).
2
Multiple new simple opcodes are introduced, or a single new complex opcode is introduced (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
3
Multiple new opcodes are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
- Cryptography opcodes are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" section for a separate assessment.
Modified opcodes
Modifies pre-existing opcodes
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing opcode modifications are introduced.
3
At least one pre-existing opcode's behavior is modified (not including gas changes) or a pre-existing opcode is deprecated.
PC+
Added precompiles
Introduces new precompiles
Score anchors
0
No new precompiles are introduced.
1
A new simple precompile is introduced (constant input length, constant gas cost).
2
Multiple new simple precompiles are introduced, or a single new complex precompile is introduced (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
3
Multiple new precompiles are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
- Cryptography precompiles are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" for a separate assessment.
Modified precompiles
Modifies pre-existing precompiles logic or gas-accounting
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing precompiles are modified.
1
At least one pre-existing precompile has its gas schedule modified.
2
Multiple pre-existing precompiles have their gas schedule modified, or a single pre-existing precompile has its behavior modified.
3
The behavior of multiple pre-existing precompiles, or a single complex pre-existing precompile modified.
Added system contracts
Introduces new system contract, stateful or not
Score anchors
0
No new system contracts are introduced.
1
A new system contract is introduced that is not stateful nor does it trigger a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
2
Multiple new system contracts are introduced or a single new system contract that is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
3
Multiple new system contracts are introduced and at least one of them is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
Modified system contracts
Modifies pre-existing system contracts
Score anchors
0
No modifications to pre-existing system contracts are introduced, directly or indirectly.
1
Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has minor indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
2
Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has major indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
3
At least one pre-existing system contract code or state is modified, which would involve irregular state transition or a similarly complex transition methodology.

Gas and accounting

Execution, blob, and state gas rules, refunds, and where charges happen inside opcodes.

EVM Gas rule changes
New EVM gas accounting rules
Score anchors
0
No gas accounting changes.
1
Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated.
2
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
3
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
ORD
State-access ordering within opcode execution · Checklist revision 2 only
Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
Score anchors
0
No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
1
A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
2
Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
3
The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
- Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
- Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
- Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
Blob gas accounting changes
New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
Score anchors
0
No blob gas accounting changes.
1
Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
2
A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
3
A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
SGAS
State gas accounting changes · Checklist revision 2 only
New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
Score anchors
0
No state gas accounting changes.
1
An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
2
A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
3
A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
- Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
New EVM gas refund
New gas-refund mechanism
Score anchors
0
No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
1
A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
2
A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
3
A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.

New transaction types
Introduces a new transaction type
Score anchors
0
No new transaction types are introduced.
3
A new transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms
Creates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
Score anchors
0
No changes are introduced to the validity rules of existing transaction types or to their intrinsic gas cost calculation.
1
Minor adjustments are introduced to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation, but they do not significantly affect existing tests.
2
Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation affect existing tests, but require only limited updates to test cases and no redesign of the testing infrastructure.
3
Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation require extensive rework or redesign of the tests or testing infrastructure.
New block / header fields
Introduces new block or block header fields
Score anchors
0
No new block or header fields are introduced.
3
A new block or header field is introduced.
ENC
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
Score anchors
0
No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
3
An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
- "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
Block syncing changes
Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
Score anchors
0
No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
1
A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
2
Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
3
Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
ACT
New fork activation mechanism
Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
Score anchors
0
No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
3
Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
- Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

Engine API changes
Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
Score anchors
0
No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
1
A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
2
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
3
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
T8N
Transition-tool interface changes
Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
Score anchors
0
No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
1
A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
2
Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
3
Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
- Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
1
Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
2
Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
3
Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
INV
New invariant on pre-existing tests · Checklist revision 2 only
Tests that are **not about this EIP** must nonetheless assert something this EIP produces. Their logic does not change; they gain a new thing to check.
Score anchors
0
Pre-existing tests assert nothing new.
1
A narrow, contrived category of pre-existing tests gains a new assertion.
2
A broad category gains a new assertion, applied mechanically.
3
Every test in the fork gains the assertion regardless of what it tests, and pre-fork vectors must be re-derived to satisfy it.
- Paired with the row above, and easy to confuse with it. "Patterns affecting pre-existing tests" asks whether existing tests must be **reworked**; this row asks whether they must **additionally assert something new**. Score both — an EIP can be low on one and high on the other.
New test-framework primitives · Checklist revision 2 only
Requires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
Score anchors
0
Existing test primitives suffice.
1
Existing primitives need minor extension.
2
New expectation or modifier primitives are required, reusable within this EIP's own test suite.
3
New framework-level primitives are required that become a permanent part of the framework and are used by other EIPs' tests.

Risk and validation

Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.

Security risks
Introduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
Score anchors
0
No new mechanisms are introduced that could pose a security risk.
1
The introduced mechanisms are self-contained, can be validated in isolation, and do not alter existing invariants that could pose a security risk for any stakeholders.
2
The introduced mechanisms interact with a limited number of existing components, slightly altering their security assumptions and requiring a targeted security review or fuzzing.
3
The introduced mechanisms interact with multiple existing components, including critical ones, substantially altering their security assumptions and requiring an extensive security review and fuzzing.
Performance risks
Introduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
Score anchors
0
No new mechanisms are introduced that require performance validation.
1
The introduced mechanisms can be benchmarked in isolation and do not affect existing performance behavior.
2
The introduced mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, but they only have a limited impact on the existing performance benchmarks.
3
The introduced mechanisms cannot be benchmarked in isolation and have a substantial impact on existing performance benchmarks or have complex interactions with existing mechanisms.
Edge/boundary conditions
Feature contains edge/boundary conditions.
Score anchors
0
No discernible edge cases or boundary conditions are introduced.
1
A single edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanism is introduced.
2
Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced, but none of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
3
Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
Cryptography
Introduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
Score anchors
0
No cryptography mechanisms are introduced.
1
A new cryptography mechanism is introduced but it is a well known mechanism that is known to have vast resources to aid on its testing.
2
Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced that are well-known or a single but novel mechanism is introduced that is either untested or has limited resources.
3
Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is a novel mechanism.

Coordination

Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.

XEIP
Cross-EIP interactions
Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
Score anchors
0
Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
1
The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
2
The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
3
The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
- +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
- This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
UNSP
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · Checklist revision 2 only
The EIP text does not determine the answer for cases a test can construct. Clients must agree on a previously unspecified detail before tests can be baselined. The cost here is coordination and re-baselining, not test writing.
Score anchors
0
The EIP text determines the answer for every case a test could construct.
1
A few details are unspecified but have an obvious intended reading.
2
Details require client agreement before tests can be written, but they are localized.
3
A previously unspecified *and previously unobservable* behavior becomes consensus-critical; expect tests to be re-baselined on each round of EIP amendment.
- Score this from the EIP's state at assessment time: whether it has client implementations, whether it has been through a devnet, and how many open questions remain on its discussion thread.