EIP complexity assessment

EIP-4758: Deactivate SELFDESTRUCT

Assessed in Hegotá. The score describes the EIP text available at the snapshot, not the EIP as it stands today.

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-08-25PFI at snapshotLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 14

Human Available in open PRscore 8 · Checklist revision 2· ethspecs/pm #105

Other checklist versions (1)

Pull request #73 · Checklist revision 1 · total 4

LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-26 · Original snapshot · 14 Human · Checklist revision 2Available in open PR · 8 CompareHuman vs LLM · same checklist revision

Evaluated on: 2026-08-26 · Spec revision: 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2 · Inclusion status at snapshot: PFI

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer assessment of the sealed EIP-4758 snapshot. The proposal renames and changes the existing SELFDESTRUCT opcode to SENDALL so that it transfers the account's ETH without deleting code or storage or changing the nonce, and it removes SELFDESTRUCT-related refunds.

14MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range: 12–17 (Medium)
Snapshot: 2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)

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: Yes

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

Why: The proposal clearly removes destructive account effects and refunds, but it does not fully specify SENDALL's execution semantics. In particular, the beneficiary wording differs between the Abstract and Specification, and halting, detailed access sequencing, and target-account edge cases are not stated. These are recorded once here rather than reused as independent complexity mechanisms.

Plausible total

12–17
recorded score 14 · plausible tiers Medium

Affected criteria (3)

State-access ordering within opcode execution (0)
Edge/boundary conditions (2)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

Is the beneficiary the opcode target, as the Specification states, or the caller, as the Abstract states?
Does SENDALL retain SELFDESTRUCT's execution-halting behavior after the rename?
What are the exact balance and account-touch semantics when the target is self, empty, or newly created?
At what execution point do the balance accesses and transfer occur relative to gas charging and exceptional execution?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The Abstract says funds go to the caller, while the Specification says they go to the target.
The word "immediately" does not define a complete execution or state-access sequence.
The opcode's post-rename halting behavior and unchanged base gas treatment are not expressly stated.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-4758 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes	3	The existing opcode's non-gas behavior is directly modified, which maps to the rubric's only nonzero score for this anchor. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification, bullet 1 SELFDESTRUCT is renamed to SENDALL and no longer destroys code or storage or alters the nonce; it only moves all ETH to the target. Confidence: High Uncertainty: None material to the fact that existing opcode behavior changes.
Security risks	3	The changed opcode affects multiple security-relevant components and assumptions: account persistence, token balances, CREATE2 recreation, withdrawal gating, and upgrade patterns. Incorrect handling therefore calls for extensive review across critical account-lifecycle behavior. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Security Considerations, items 1-2 The proposal breaks SELFDESTRUCT-based non-ETH token burning and CREATE2-based lifecycle and upgrade patterns, including a pattern intended to prevent later withdrawals. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, paragraph 2 Same-address contract recreation after SELFDESTRUCT no longer works. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The package states that few applications are affected but gives no deployment inventory; this limits prevalence estimates, not the depth of the identified security interactions.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	2	Whole-balance transfer with retained account state and the identified token, recreation, lifecycle, and upgrade patterns create multiple boundary-prone cases. The package does not establish that any one mechanism requires the elevated case count needed for score 3. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification, bullet 1 SENDALL transfers the account's entire ETH balance to a target while retaining code, storage, and nonce. eip.md · Security Considerations, items 1-2 The proposal identifies token-balance burning and CREATE2 same-address redeployment, including lifecycle and upgrade uses, as broken patterns. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Self-target, zero-balance, target-account, repeated-call, and execution-halting semantics are not expressly resolved by the short specification.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	EIP-20 token-state behavior and CREATE2-based address lifecycle behavior need coordinated consideration, but the package describes a limited interaction surface centered on SELFDESTRUCT-dependent patterns. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Security Considerations, item 1 The proposal explicitly identifies EIP-20 token balances as affected by deactivation. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, paragraph 2; Security Considerations, item 2 Same-address recreation and upgrade patterns using CREATE2 after SELFDESTRUCT are explicitly broken. supporting/eip-20.md · Frontmatter and body The allowlisted supporting document identifies EIP 20 but states that its specification was moved, so it supplies no additional interaction detail. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package does not provide a numbered EIP for CREATE2, and the supporting EIP-20 file contains no substantive token specification. Interacting EIPs: EIP-20
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Test-constructible questions require localized agreement, including the caller-versus-target wording and whether renamed SENDALL retains terminating behavior. The core effect is defined, so the uncertainty is localized rather than a newly exposed fork-wide behavior. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Abstract The replacement is described as sending all Ether in the account to the caller. eip.md · Specification, bullet 1 The normative bullet instead says all ETH moves to the target and does not define halting or detailed target-account edge semantics. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package provides no implementation, devnet, or discussion evidence and the EIP status is Stagnant, so resolution of these questions cannot be inferred.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	Removing an existing opcode refund updates the existing EVM gas-accounting rules, but the proposal introduces no new gas-accounting mechanism. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification, bullet 2 All refunds related to SELFDESTRUCT are removed. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The text does not specify the opcode's remaining charge schedule, so this score is limited to the explicit refund-rule change.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	Pre-existing tests that exercise SELFDESTRUCT results, refunds, or same-address recreation need reworking, but the package characterizes the affected application set as small and ties it to a narrow opcode-focused subset. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 Existing SELFDESTRUCT results and refunds change: code, storage, and nonce persist while ETH is transferred. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, paragraph 2 The proposal says few applications are affected and identifies same-address recreation with CREATE2 as the breaking use. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package contains no test inventory, so the exact size of the affected subset cannot be established.

Show 21 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	Renaming and redefining the existing opcode is a modification, not the introduction of an additional opcode.	eip.md · Abstract SELFDESTRUCT is renamed to SENDALL and its functionality is replaced. Uncertainty: The text does not state an opcode byte, but consistently frames SENDALL as a rename of SELFDESTRUCT rather than an addition.
Added precompiles	The proposal adds no precompile.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 No precompile or precompile address is introduced. Uncertainty: None; the proposal changes an opcode only.
Modified precompiles	No existing precompile behavior or gas accounting is modified.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 No precompile logic or gas schedule is mentioned. Uncertainty: None; precompiles are outside the stated scope.
Added system contracts	No system contract is introduced.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 The proposal changes an opcode and adds no contract or contract address. Uncertainty: None; no system contract is part of the specified mechanism.
Modified system contracts	No direct modification or package-grounded indirect effect on a pre-existing system contract is identified.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, paragraph 2 The proposal describes affected applications generally and identifies CREATE2 recreation, but names no pre-existing system contract. Uncertainty: The package does not inventory system-contract use of SELFDESTRUCT, so no such interaction can be inferred.
State-access ordering within opcode executionUnder-specified	The proposal changes which state effects the opcode produces, but it does not state a change to the relative ordering of a state access and a gas charge inside opcode execution.	eip.md · Specification, bullet 1 SENDALL immediately moves all ETH to the target and no longer destroys code or storage or alters the nonce. Uncertainty: The word "immediately" does not define the detailed access sequence or gas boundaries; that omission is recorded as under-specification rather than scored as an ordering change.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 The specified changes concern SELFDESTRUCT state effects, ETH transfer, and refunds; no blob-gas rule is specified. Uncertainty: No blob-related behavior appears in the proposal.
State gas accounting changes	Changing the opcode's state result is not itself a change to a state-gas cost, rate, charging site, budget, reservoir, or spill mechanism.	eip.md · Specification, bullet 1 The opcode ceases to delete code or storage or alter the nonce and only moves the account's ETH. Uncertainty: The proposal specifies no state-gas accounting rules.
New EVM gas refund	The proposal removes refunds and introduces no new refund mechanism.	eip.md · Specification, bullet 2 Existing SELFDESTRUCT-related refunds are removed. Uncertainty: None material for whether a new refund is introduced.
New transaction types	The proposal adds no transaction type.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 No transaction type is introduced; the change applies during opcode execution. Uncertainty: None; transaction envelopes are outside the specified change.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No transaction validity mechanism or intrinsic gas rule changes.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 The proposal changes an executed opcode's result and refund, not transaction validity or intrinsic gas calculation. Uncertainty: None; consensus-rule modification alone does not imply transaction validity changes.
New block / header fields	The proposal adds no block or block-header field.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 No block or header field is introduced. Uncertainty: None; the proposal has no block-format surface.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No RLP, SSZ, or other encoding change is introduced.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 The proposal defines no transaction, block, or interface encoding change. Uncertainty: None; the specified behavior does not alter encoded data.
Block syncing changes	The proposal introduces no block RLP validation mechanism.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 No block RLP field or block-validation encoding rule is specified. Uncertainty: None; the specified change is confined to opcode execution and refunds.
New fork activation mechanism	Requiring fork activation is not itself a new activation mechanism under the anchor; no activation-block mutation is defined.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, paragraph 1 The proposal requires a hard fork because it modifies consensus rules. eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 No activation-block state mutation or modification of an internal variable is specified. Uncertainty: None; the text specifies no one-time activation action.
Engine API changes	The proposal requires no Engine API change on the evidence provided.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 No Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism is specified. Uncertainty: None; no cross-layer API surface appears in the proposal.
Transition-tool interface changes	No transition-tool interface modification is required by the text.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 The entire specified surface is an opcode behavior change and refund removal; no transition-tool input or output field is defined. Uncertainty: The package contains no transition-tool design, but the proposal exposes no new data that such an interface must carry.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Tests of the changed opcode need different expectations, but tests unrelated to this proposal do not gain an additional invariant to assert.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 The proposal changes the behavior and refund of one existing opcode but specifies no fork-wide output or assertion. Uncertainty: No package evidence identifies a new assertion on unrelated tests.
New test-framework primitives	The proposal does not require a new expectation type, modifier, helper, or other test-framework abstraction.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 The specified outcomes are ordinary account balance, code, storage, nonce, and gas-refund observations. Uncertainty: No framework evidence is available in the package; the score rests on the absence of a novel observable data type in the specification.
Performance risks	The proposal removes the large destructive state operation and introduces no new mechanism that the package says requires performance validation.	eip.md · Motivation, paragraph 1 SELFDESTRUCT is described as requiring large account-state changes because it removes code and storage. eip.md · Specification, bullet 1 The replacement avoids code and storage deletion and nonce alteration, retaining only the ETH transfer. Uncertainty: The package contains no benchmarks, but it identifies no new performance-sensitive path beyond the narrowed balance-transfer behavior.
Cryptography	No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification, bullets 1-2 The proposal specifies an ETH transfer and removal of destructive effects and refunds. Uncertainty: None; cryptography is outside the stated change.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-4758.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob df7433a9a0 · sha256 8e4973a1ea21
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/08-hegota-prospective-complexity-assessment/outputs/assessments/hegota-pfi-2026-08-26/eip-4758.yaml · sha256 78d6ec6f4430
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-20.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

8LowLow

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v2
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2026-08-17
Source: open ethspecs/pm pull request #105

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 Human total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

Modified opcodes3
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1
Security risks1
Edge/boundary conditions1

Criterion breakdown

EIP-4758 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Modified opcodes	3	Pre-existing opcode behavior modified: the deletion path is removed and `SELFDESTRUCT` becomes `SENDALL`.	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	EIP-6780 already narrowed deletion to same-tx-created accounts, so only that contrived family changes expectations: `tests/cancun/eip6780_selfdestruct`, `tests/amsterdam/eip8246_selfdestruct_no_burn`, CREATE2-redeploy-onto-tombstone cases. A trial removal in EELS fails only a small number of tests; the ~200 ported-static SELFDESTRUCT tests almost all use pre-existing contracts, which stopped deleting at Cancun.	—
Security risks	1	Chain-level it removes an invariant-complicating mechanism (resurrection via CREATE2 redeploy). Breakage is application-layer (upgrade/redeploy patterns) and testable in isolation.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	1	One genuinely new edge-prone surface: created-then-destroyed accounts now persist, so CREATE2 onto such an account hits the collision path. The other boundary cases (self-sweep, zero-balance sweep to a dead beneficiary, SENDALL in initcode, repeated SENDALL in one tx) already exist under EIP-6780/8246 and lose branches rather than gain them.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	1	Supersedes EIP-6780's deletion gate and EIP-8246's tombstone: their suites (and those tests' EIP-7928 BAL vectors) get updated expectations, but the rework is small, mechanical, and testable independently. Interacting EIPs: 6780, 8246, 7928, 7708, 8037; no +1 increment (under six).	—
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	1	Stagnant two-line 2022 text predates EIP-6780/7708/8037/8246 and needs modernizing, but each open detail has an obvious intended reading: halt semantics, state-gas charging sites, and transfer-log rules carry over unchanged; only the deletion goes.	—

Show 22 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	Rename of `0xFF`, not a new opcode.	—
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	Opcode gas schedule unchanged (base + cold access + account write + state gas all remain). The EIP's refund-removal clause is a no-op: SELFDESTRUCT refunds were removed by EIP-3529.	—
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No access or gas-charge site inside the opcode moves. The removed behavior (account clearing) happens at end of transaction, outside opcode execution.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
State gas accounting changes	SENDALL keeps the existing NEW_ACCOUNT / account-write charging sites; end-of-tx clearing is not gas-charged today, so removing it changes no accounting.	—
New EVM gas refund	Adds none; the refunds it removes have been gone since London.	—
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No rationale recorded.	—
New block / header fields	No rationale recorded.	—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No rationale recorded.	—
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New fork activation mechanism	Pre-fork state, including EIP-8246 tombstones, is untouched at activation.	—
Engine API changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Transition-tool interface changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	No rationale recorded.	—
New test-framework primitives	No rationale recorded.	—
Performance risks	Removes work (end-of-tx account clearing); no new mechanism requires performance validation.	—
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	—

Assessment provenance

Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Open pull request #105: Add EIP-4758 complexity assessment · checklist at 87fbde51cd · updated 2026-08-17
blob 524925b920 · sha256 5a0bbd26d962
Research record: research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-4758.yaml · sha256 b4717dd137d0

Both assessments applied Checklist revision 2 (28 criteria) to EIP-4758 in Hegotá. Δ is LLM minus Human.

Using the latest scored LLM evaluation for this checklist: 2026-08-26 · spec 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2. The Human and LLM assessments may use different spec revisions.

LLM14Medium

Human8Low

Δ total+6Tiers differ: Medium vs Low

Criteria23/28agree exactly · 4 differ by 1 · 1 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Security risks (+2), EVM Gas rule changes (+1), Edge/boundary conditions (+1), Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (+1), Cross-EIP interactions (+1)

Show differences only (5 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Security risks	3	1	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The changed opcode affects multiple security-relevant components and assumptions: account persistence, token balances, CREATE2 recreation, withdrawal gating, and upgrade patterns. Incorrect handling therefore calls for extensive review across critical account-lifecycle behavior. Human Chain-level it removes an invariant-complicating mechanism (resurrection via CREATE2 redeploy). Breakage is application-layer (upgrade/redeploy patterns) and testable in isolation.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Removing an existing opcode refund updates the existing EVM gas-accounting rules, but the proposal introduces no new gas-accounting mechanism. Human Opcode gas schedule unchanged (base + cold access + account write + state gas all remain). The EIP's refund-removal clause is a no-op: SELFDESTRUCT refunds were removed by EIP-3529.
Edge/boundary conditions	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Whole-balance transfer with retained account state and the identified token, recreation, lifecycle, and upgrade patterns create multiple boundary-prone cases. The package does not establish that any one mechanism requires the elevated case count needed for score 3. Human One genuinely new edge-prone surface: created-then-destroyed accounts now persist, so CREATE2 onto such an account hits the collision path. The other boundary cases (self-sweep, zero-balance sweep to a dead beneficiary, SENDALL in initcode, repeated SENDALL in one tx) already exist under EIP-6780/8246 and lose branches rather than gain them.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM EIP-20 token-state behavior and CREATE2-based address lifecycle behavior need coordinated consideration, but the package describes a limited interaction surface centered on SELFDESTRUCT-dependent patterns. Human Supersedes EIP-6780's deletion gate and EIP-8246's tombstone: their suites (and those tests' EIP-7928 BAL vectors) get updated expectations, but the rework is small, mechanical, and testable independently. Interacting EIPs: 6780, 8246, 7928, 7708, 8037; no +1 increment (under six).
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Test-constructible questions require localized agreement, including the caller-versus-target wording and whether renamed SENDALL retains terminating behavior. The core effect is defined, so the uncertainty is localized rather than a newly exposed fork-wide behavior. Human Stagnant two-line 2022 text predates EIP-6780/7708/8037/8246 and needs modernizing, but each open detail has an obvious intended reading: halt semantics, state-gas charging sites, and transfer-log rules carry over unchanged; only the deletion goes.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Renaming and redefining the existing opcode is a modification, not the introduction of an additional opcode. Human Rename of `0xFF`, not a new opcode.
Modified opcodes	3	3	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The existing opcode's non-gas behavior is directly modified, which maps to the rubric's only nonzero score for this anchor. Human Pre-existing opcode behavior modified: the deletion path is removed and `SELFDESTRUCT` becomes `SENDALL`.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal adds no precompile. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No existing precompile behavior or gas accounting is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No direct modification or package-grounded indirect effect on a pre-existing system contract is identified. Human No rationale recorded.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal changes which state effects the opcode produces, but it does not state a change to the relative ordering of a state access and a gas charge inside opcode execution. Human No access or gas-charge site inside the opcode moves. The removed behavior (account clearing) happens at end of transaction, outside opcode execution.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Changing the opcode's state result is not itself a change to a state-gas cost, rate, charging site, budget, reservoir, or spill mechanism. Human SENDALL keeps the existing NEW_ACCOUNT / account-write charging sites; end-of-tx clearing is not gas-charged today, so removing it changes no accounting.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal removes refunds and introduces no new refund mechanism. Human Adds none; the refunds it removes have been gone since London.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal adds no transaction type. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transaction validity mechanism or intrinsic gas rule changes. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal adds no block or block-header field. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No RLP, SSZ, or other encoding change is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal introduces no block RLP validation mechanism. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Requiring fork activation is not itself a new activation mechanism under the anchor; no activation-block mutation is defined. Human Pre-fork state, including EIP-8246 tombstones, is untouched at activation.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal requires no Engine API change on the evidence provided. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transition-tool interface modification is required by the text. Human No rationale recorded.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Pre-existing tests that exercise SELFDESTRUCT results, refunds, or same-address recreation need reworking, but the package characterizes the affected application set as small and ties it to a narrow opcode-focused subset. Human EIP-6780 already narrowed deletion to same-tx-created accounts, so only that contrived family changes expectations: `tests/cancun/eip6780_selfdestruct`, `tests/amsterdam/eip8246_selfdestruct_no_burn`, CREATE2-redeploy-onto-tombstone cases. A trial removal in EELS fails only a small number of tests; the ~200 ported-static SELFDESTRUCT tests almost all use pre-existing contracts, which stopped deleting at Cancun.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Tests of the changed opcode need different expectations, but tests unrelated to this proposal do not gain an additional invariant to assert. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal does not require a new expectation type, modifier, helper, or other test-framework abstraction. Human No rationale recorded.
Performance risks	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal removes the large destructive state operation and introduces no new mechanism that the package says requires performance validation. Human Removes work (end-of-tx account clearing); no new mechanism requires performance validation.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-4758 with other assessments All Hegotá 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.