Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-4844: Shard Blob Transactions

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

RetrospectiveCancun / DencunAssessment cutoff 2022-12-08Included by cutoffLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 48
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2022-12-05 · 7eac5f7f4a

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, this draft introduced an EIP-2718 blob-carrying transaction whose signed payload used SSZ and whose network form additionally carried blobs, KZG commitments, and an aggregate proof. It added a block-header excess-data-gas field, an independent data-gas fee market and burn, a DATAHASH opcode, and a KZG point-evaluation precompile. It also assigned blob persistence and availability to the consensus layer through separately propagated sidecars and changed execution-layer transaction propagation to announcement and on-demand retrieval.

48HighHigh
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 13 criteria affected
Plausible range
44–52 (High)
Assessment cutoff
2022-12-08 · EIP revision 7eac5f7f4a (2022-12-05)
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.

Top complexity drivers

  1. Blob gas accounting changes3
  2. New transaction types3
  3. New or modified transaction validity mechanisms3
  4. New block / header fields3

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: Material gaps remain in consensus-test inputs and interface behavior: the mainnet KZG setup is TBD; DATAHASH behavior outside blob transactions is not stated; blob receipt encoding is absent; malformed blob-wrapper and precompile cases are not fully determined; the Blob representation differs between the EIP and its linked cryptographic specification; and Engine API and transition-tool schemas are not defined. The Test Cases section is also TBD, and detailed consensus specifications are represented in the capsule only by a directory listing plus the polynomial document.

Plausible total

44–52
recorded score 48 · plausible tiers High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (8)
  • What does DATAHASH return when the current transaction has no blob_versioned_hashes field?
  • What exact ReceiptPayload and receipt encoding apply to the new EIP-2718 transaction type?
  • What are the canonical mainnet trusted-setup contents and roots-of-unity preset used by all clients and vectors?
  • How are short, long, non-canonical, or otherwise malformed point-precompile inputs rejected?
  • Which blob and wrapper malformations are rejected, at what validation stage, and with which per-transaction size limit?
  • Is Blob canonically an SSZ vector of uint256 field elements or a fixed byte vector at the execution/network boundary?
  • Which Engine API and transition-tool fields carry the new header, blob, commitment, and validation information?
  • Does calc_data_fee use its parent argument where its body refers to header, and which block's excess value prices a transaction?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (5)
  • The EIP defines Blob as a vector of BLSFieldElement values, while the linked polynomial document defines Blob as a fixed byte vector; canonical boundary serialization is not reconciled in the packaged text.
  • calc_data_fee accepts parent but calls get_data_gasprice(header), leaving the intended argument name and pricing reference implicit.
  • DATAHASH reads tx.message.blob_versioned_hashes without defining behavior for legacy or other typed transactions that do not have that member.
  • EIP-2718 requires typed receipt payloads to be defined by their transaction EIPs, but this draft does not define the blob transaction receipt payload.
  • Mainnet KZG_SETUP_G1, KZG_SETUP_G2, and KZG_SETUP_LAGRANGE values are TBD despite their critical-security status.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-4844 Cancun / Dencun: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Blob gas accounting changesUnder-specified3This is a new blob-gas accounting mechanism with persistent block state, its own target and pricing curve, transaction balance checks, fee caps, deduction, and burn. Its header and block-validity consequences affect ordinary block-processing and regression vectors, satisfying anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — Header extension and Gas accounting, lines 177-219 and 276-312 A persistent excess-data-gas header value drives an independent exponential data-gas price; blob transactions gain affordability and fee-cap validity checks, and the actual data fee is deducted and burned even on failure.
  • eip.md · Rationale — Data gasprice update rule, lines 422-433 The new self-correcting price responds to cumulative use relative to a target and is explicitly modeled after, but distinct from, EIP-1559.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The pricing pseudocode contains a header/parent naming inconsistency, but the existence and breadth of the mechanism are unambiguous.
New transaction types3A new transaction type is explicitly introduced, which receives the criterion's binary anchor-3 score.
  • eip.md · Specification — Parameters and New transaction type, lines 38-60 and 102-175 BLOB_TX_TYPE 0x05 is assigned to a new EIP-2718 SignedBlobTransaction with a specified SSZ container and signing rule.
Confidence: High
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified3The new type brings several mutually dependent structural, cryptographic, fee, and wrapper-validity rules that require new encoders, proof fixtures, and invalid- case infrastructure. This is extensive test redesign under anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — New transaction type, lines 139-175 Blob transaction validity couples signature recovery to SSZ tree hashing and checks version bytes, list cardinalities, commitment hashes, blob contents, and network-wrapper consistency.
  • eip.md · Specification — Gas accounting and Networking, lines 276-349 Validity further depends on data-gas affordability and fee caps plus aggregate KZG verification of the network wrapper.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Receipt encoding, malformed blob handling, and some applicability details are absent, so exact invalid-case expectations require agreement.
New block / header fields3A new block-header field is explicitly introduced, so the binary anchor-3 score applies.
  • eip.md · Specification — Header extension, lines 177-219 The RLP block header gains the 256-bit excess_data_gas field and a rule deriving it from the parent and current blob count.
Confidence: High
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)Under-specified3The proposal makes encoding changes at transaction, network-interface, execution- payload, and block-header levels. Encoding changes are binary-scored at anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — New transaction type and Header extension, lines 102-205 The new typed transaction uses SSZ, has distinct network and minimal encodings, extends EIP-2718 with wrapper data, and adds a field to the RLP header.
  • eip.md · Specification — Networking, lines 314-349 The network payload is a new SSZ wrapper containing the signed transaction, commitments, blobs, and an aggregate proof.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The EIP's Blob type differs in presentation from the byte-vector Blob type in the packaged polynomial specification, leaving a serialization detail to reconcile.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified3Representing blob transactions and the new header result requires multiple new interface fields, while data-gas accounting is a new transition mechanism. This matches anchor 3, although the draft does not name a concrete transition-tool API.
  • eip.md · Specification — New transaction type and Header extension, lines 102-219 State transition processing must consume a transaction with several new fields and SSZ encoding and must produce or validate a new parent-dependent header field.
  • eip.md · Specification — Gas accounting, lines 276-312 Transition processing also needs a separate data-gas price, affordability cap, up-front deduction, and burn mechanism.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The exact transition-tool field layout and whether KZG validation is performed inside or outside that interface are unspecified.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3Existing transaction, block/header, fork-transition, networking, syncing, and execution/consensus integration patterns require reworking across diverse test categories. That is a major, non-contrived regression surface and meets anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — New transaction type through Beacon chain validation, lines 102-235 The proposal changes typed-transaction contexts, adds an SSZ transaction and network wrapper, extends every post-fork header, and requires beacon block, gossip, sync, and validator changes.
  • eip.md · Specification — Gas accounting and Networking, lines 276-349 Block validity, sender affordability, fee deduction, transaction propagation, and wrapper validation all gain new rules.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The historical draft's Test Cases section is TBD, so the exact inventory of affected pre-existing suites is not stated.
Security risksUnder-specified3The proposal alters assumptions across critical execution, consensus availability, P2P, fee-accounting, and cryptographic components. Failure can invalidate blocks, accept unavailable or uncommitted data, or expose nodes to resource attacks, so extensive cross-component review and fuzzing are required under anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — wrapper validation and Beacon chain validation, lines 149-161 and 221-235 Security-critical checks connect signed transactions, commitments, blob data, KZG proofs, execution processing, consensus availability, gossip, and syncing.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations, lines 447-470 The draft identifies mempool amplification/DoS risk and increased consensus-node storage and propagation load.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-eip4844-polynomial-commitments.md · Trusted setup, lines 85-94 Reuse of the mainnet trusted setup is called a critical security requirement, while its packaged values remain TBD.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The unresolved trusted setup and malformed-input semantics are themselves material review items, but the risk tier is already clear.
Performance risks3End-to-end behavior combines cryptographic computation, mempool admission, execution validation, consensus propagation, syncing, and storage. It cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation and substantially changes existing network and block-processing paths, satisfying anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Motivation, Beacon chain validation, and Throughput, lines 27-34, 221-235, and 435-437 All consensus nodes download blob data, beacon nodes persist it, gossip and sync sidecars, and validators produce them, with up to roughly 0.5 MB of new data per block.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations, lines 443-470 Large mempool objects create a DoS concern, while bandwidth, block propagation, storage retention, and deletion policy all change.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-eip4844-polynomial-commitments.md · Introduction and polynomial/KZG helpers, lines 45-49 and 241-453 Practical clients are expected to optimize expensive polynomial operations, multiscalar multiplication, proof construction, and aggregate verification.
Confidence: High
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Numerous independent boundaries combine across transaction shape, blob count, fees, header recurrence, field encoding, proof verification, and opcode indices. Cryptographic and pricing boundaries require an elevated matrix of cases, meeting anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — Parameters, wrapper validation, DATAHASH, precompile, and gas accounting, lines 38-60, 149-161, 237-312 The design introduces list and per-block limits, equality among three wrapper lists, version-byte checks, indexed access with an out-of-range result, fixed input slices and field canonicality, fee caps, balance bounds, and a recurrent exponential price calculation.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-eip4844-polynomial-commitments.md · Field conversion and aggregate proof functions, lines 153-178 and 388-453 Cryptographic handling includes modulus boundaries, empty aggregate inputs, equal-length requirements, and evaluation-domain division constraints.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Some malformed-input outcomes are not fully specified, increasing rather than reducing the boundary-testing burden.
CryptographyUnder-specified3Multiple new cryptographic mechanisms must be tested: KZG commitment and point verification plus a custom aggregated-proof protocol and its transcript, all dependent on a trusted setup. The custom aggregate construction supplies the novel component required by anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — Cryptographic Helpers and Point evaluation precompile, lines 62-80 and 244-274 The proposal introduces versioned KZG commitments, point-evaluation proof verification, BLS-field canonicality checks, and a cryptographic precompile.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-eip4844-polynomial-commitments.md · Preset, Fiat-Shamir challenges, and KZG, lines 70-94, 180-217, and 318-453 The sealed cryptographic specification defines a trusted setup, custom Fiat-Shamir aggregation, commitment and point-proof operations, and aggregate proof creation and verification.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Mainnet trusted-setup contents are still TBD in the packaged cryptographic specification, which affects final vectors but not this complexity classification.
Cross-EIP interactions3Five identified EIPs interact with the proposal across transaction envelopes, fee semantics, access lists, header layout, and P2P propagation. The especially strong EIP-2718 and EIP-5793 coupling and the multi-EIP header/transaction matrix require coordinated testing, supporting base anchor 3. Five interactions do not reach the first uncapped bonus threshold of six, so no +1 is added.
  • eip.md · Front matter and Specification — New transaction type, lines 1-12 and 102-159 EIP-4844 requires EIPs 1559, 2718, 2930, and 4895; it reuses EIP-1559 fee fields, extends EIP-2718 with network wrapper data, carries an EIP-2930 access list, and builds its header after the EIP-4895 withdrawals root.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — Mempool issues, lines 447-456 EIP-5793 is identified as the companion announcement change that provides type- and size-aware control for large blob transactions.
  • supporting/eip-5793.md · Motivation and Specification, lines 18-31 EIP-5793 explicitly responds to EIP-4844's large transaction type by modifying NewPooledTransactionHashes to carry transaction types and sizes.
Confidence: High
Interacting EIPs: EIP-1559, EIP-2718, EIP-2930, EIP-4895, EIP-5793
Block syncing changesUnder-specified2The RLP header extension is not merely structural: sync validation must derive its value from the parent and blob content, while the associated block data is split into sidecars. This is best treated as a single complex block-validation change under anchor 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — Header extension and Beacon chain validation, lines 177-235 The execution header RLP gains a parent- and blob-dependent field, while beacon syncing must handle updated block types and separately propagated blob sidecars.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Detailed consensus sync rules are delegated to a linked directory whose packaged directory entry lists files but does not expose their contents other than the polynomial-commitment document.
New invariant on pre-existing tests2A broad category of pre-existing block tests must mechanically assert the new header field and its recurrence even when blob behavior is not their subject. The text does not establish that every test or pre-fork vector must be re-derived, so anchor 2 is the best fit rather than anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — Header extension, lines 177-219 Every post-fork header gains excess_data_gas, whose expected value is derived from the parent and the new block's blob count, including an explicit first-block rule.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The proposal does not describe the historical test harness or enumerate which vector families materialize complete headers.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified2Existing transaction-test primitives cannot by themselves express blob fixtures, SSZ/network dual encodings, and KZG proof expectations. New reusable builders and expectations are required within the EIP suite, fitting anchor 2; the sealed text does not establish permanent reuse by other EIPs.
  • eip.md · Specification — New transaction type and Networking, lines 102-175 and 314-349 Tests need to build and distinguish SSZ signed payloads, minimal block encodings, network wrappers, blobs, commitments, and aggregate proofs.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-eip4844-polynomial-commitments.md · Introduction and KZG public methods, lines 45-49 and 318-453 The KZG specification requires public library methods for commitments, point proofs, and aggregate proof construction and verification.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP's Test Cases section is TBD and does not describe the test framework, so the precise primitive boundary is inferred from required fixture construction.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Several constructable cases cannot be baselined from the draft alone, including non-blob DATAHASH execution, malformed precompile/wrapper inputs, blob receipt encoding, and final KZG preset data. These gaps require agreement but are localized to new mechanisms; they do not make a previously unobservable existing behavior consensus-critical, so anchor 2 fits better than anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — DATAHASH, precompile, gas accounting, and Networking, lines 237-349 The draft does not state DATAHASH behavior for transactions without a blob-hash member, gives slice-and-assert pseudocode without complete malformed-input outcomes, contains a header/parent variable inconsistency in fee calculation, and leaves a blob-malformation assertion as a note.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 458-460 The Test Cases section is TBD.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-eip4844-polynomial-commitments.md · Trusted setup, lines 85-94 Consensus-critical mainnet KZG setup vectors are explicitly TBD even though using the correct setup is called a critical security requirement.
  • supporting/eip-2718.md · Specification — Receipts, lines 39-47 EIP-2718 requires each typed transaction's receipt type to match and delegates its ReceiptPayload definition to the new transaction EIP, while EIP-4844 does not define that payload.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Detailed consensus and interface specifications are referenced but not present beyond a directory listing and the polynomial-commitment file in the sealed package.
Added opcodesUnder-specified1This is one simple opcode with no variable data portion, simple stack behavior, and constant gas, exactly matching anchor 1.
  • eip.md · Specification — Opcode to get versioned hashes, lines 237-242 One DATAHASH opcode is added; it consumes one stack index, returns one hash or zero, and has a constant gas cost.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The result when DATAHASH executes in a non-blob transaction is not stated because those transactions lack the referenced blob_versioned_hashes member.
Added precompilesUnder-specified1The precompile has constant input layout and constant gas, so it is simple under this anchor; its substantial cryptographic complexity is separately scored.
  • eip.md · Specification — Point evaluation precompile, lines 244-274 One precompile is added with a 192-byte field layout, a fixed gas charge, KZG verification, and a fixed 64-byte result on success.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Exact malformed-length failure handling is not explicit, but it does not make input length or gas dynamic.
EVM Gas rule changes1The normal EVM gas mechanism is extended with fixed charges for one opcode and one precompile, but no new execution-gas meter or interaction with existing EVM gas rules is introduced. The independent data-gas mechanism is scored in its dedicated criterion, leaving this at the anchor-1 existing-mechanism update.
  • eip.md · Specification — Opcode to get versioned hashes and Point evaluation precompile, lines 237-274 The new DATAHASH opcode has a fixed three-gas cost and the new point-evaluation precompile has a fixed 50,000-gas cost.
Confidence: High
Engine API changesUnder-specified1At minimum, the new execution-payload header value must cross the execution and consensus boundary as one additional payload field, matching anchor 1. The draft does not specify additional Engine API endpoints or an explicit interface schema.
  • eip.md · Specification — Header extension and Beacon chain validation, lines 177-235 The execution payload header gains excess_data_gas and the proposal assigns execution/consensus cross-verification for blob-bearing blocks.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: Engine API directives are not named, and the transport and validation split for blob commitments and sidecars is not defined in the packaged text.
Show 8 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode result or behavior changes.
  • eip.md · Specification — Opcode to get versioned hashes, lines 237-242 The proposal allocates and defines a new opcode and does not alter or deprecate an existing opcode.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification — Point evaluation precompile, lines 244-274 The EIP allocates a new precompile address and contains no modification to an existing precompile's gas schedule or logic.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced; the cryptographic execution facility is scored as a precompile instead.
  • eip.md · Specification — Opcode to get versioned hashes and Point evaluation precompile, lines 237-274 Execution access is added through an opcode and a precompile, not through a deployed system contract.
Modified system contracts0No pre-existing system contract is directly or indirectly modified, so the criterion is zero.
  • eip.md · Specification — Opcode to get versioned hashes and Point evaluation precompile, lines 237-274 The proposal adds new execution facilities and specifies no change to any existing system contract's code, state, or behavior.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No existing opcode's state-access path or gas-charge ordering is changed, and the sole new opcode is not state-accessing. The anchor therefore remains zero.
  • eip.md · Specification — Opcode to get versioned hashes, lines 237-242 DATAHASH reads an index and returns a value from the transaction's versioned-hash list or zero; it neither accesses state nor changes gas charging around a state access.
State gas accounting changes0The new meter prices blob data rather than state writes, so none of the rubric's state-gas mechanisms is changed.
  • eip.md · Specification — Gas accounting, lines 276-312 The proposal defines data gas for blobs and a balance deduction; it does not define state-byte charging, a state-gas budget, or a spill path into execution gas.
New EVM gas refund0No new EVM refund mechanism is introduced; the only explicit refund rule denies a data-fee refund.
  • eip.md · Specification — Gas accounting, lines 296-312 The proposal states that the data fee is burned and is not refunded when a transaction fails.
New fork activation mechanism0The first-block rule initializes the new header recurrence. The rubric excludes initialization of a new internal variable, and no activation-block state change is specified, so the score is zero.
  • eip.md · Specification — Header extension, lines 177-220 For the first post-fork block the missing parent excess_data_gas value is simply evaluated as zero; no existing state or internal variable is mutated at activation.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@7eac5f7f4a EIPS/eip-4844.md committed 2022-12-05 · information cutoff 2022-12-08
Current master · File history · blob df8423c5b8 · sha256 014ecdd0aeff
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/cancun/eip-4844.yaml · sha256 25ca3d731ccc
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-1559.md, supporting/eip-2718.md, supporting/eip-2930.md, supporting/eip-4895.md, supporting/eip-5793.md, supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-eip4844, supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-eip4844-polynomial-commitments.md
Compare EIP-4844 with other assessmentsAll Cancun / Dencun 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.

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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.).
  • 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.

  • 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.
  • 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.