Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-5656: MCOPY - Memory copying instruction

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 2023-05-25Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 8
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2023-05-11 · e9b6a228f0

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-5656 (revision e9b6a228, status Review) adds one EVM instruction, MCOPY, at 0xb7. It pops dst, src and length from the stack and copies length bytes of memory from src to dst, behaving as if through an intermediate buffer, so the two regions may overlap. It returns no stack items. Its gas follows the existing W_copy formula: Gverylow + 3 per copied word, plus memory expansion. Memory is expanded only when length > 0 and src+length or dst+length goes past the current memory size. The EIP cites EIP-2929 only to explain why the identity precompile is a costly way to copy memory, and it changes no other opcode, precompile, transaction, header or API.

8LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 1 criterion affected
Plausible range
8–9 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2023-05-25 · EIP revision e9b6a228f0 (2023-05-11)
Score bands · Checklist revision 3
  • 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. Added opcodes2
  2. Edge/boundary conditions2
  3. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1
  4. Security risks1

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: There are minor textual gaps. The Semantics section gives a gas formula without memory expansion, contradicting the Gas costs section, though the deference to the yellow paper's W_copy rules settles it. The zero-length, out-of-range-offset case is only implied by the length > 0 condition. The Security Considerations section is TBA.

Plausible total

8–9
recorded score 8 · plausible tiers Low

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (2)
  • Does MCOPY with length == 0 and very large (or overflowing) src/dst offsets succeed with no memory expansion charge? The text implies yes but does not say so explicitly.
  • Is the Semantics section's gas formula (without memory expansion) just an abbreviation? The Gas costs section suggests it is.
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The two gas formulas differ: one includes memory_expansion_cost and the other does not.
  • Behavior when src+length or dst+length overflows 2^256 is not stated and is assumed to follow existing copy-opcode rules.
  • Security Considerations is TBA.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-5656 Cancun / Dencun: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes2Exactly one instruction is added. It has no immediate data and fixed stack effects, but its gas is dynamic (per word plus memory expansion), which makes it complex. That meets level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — "The instruction `MCOPY` is introduced at `0xb7`." Exactly one new instruction.
  • eip.md · Gas costs — "g_copy = 3 * words_copied + memory_expansion_cost" Gas depends on length and on memory expansion, so it is dynamic.
Confidence: High
Edge/boundary conditions2Several independent boundary-sensitive rules are introduced: the zero-length exemption from expansion; expansion driven by max(src+length, dst+length), including out-of-gas and offset-overflow limits; per-word rounding of copy cost; and forward versus backward overlap correctness. Each can be tested mostly on its own axis, so there is no elevated matrix.
  • eip.md · Semantics — "If `length > 0` and (`src + length` or `dst + length`) is beyond the current memory length, the memory is extended" Memory expansion depends on whether length is zero and on the larger of the two end offsets.
  • eip.md · Semantics — "Copying takes place as if an intermediate buffer was used, allowing the destination and source to overlap." Overlap semantics depend on the relative positions of src and dst.
  • eip.md · Gas costs — "words_copied = (length + 31) // 32" Copy cost rounds up to whole words.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Treating src, dst and length as one interacting matrix for expansion and overlap could support level 3. These dimensions are largely separable, however.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1Rework is limited to baseline cases that use 0xb7 as an undefined or invalid opcode, such as invalid-opcode enumeration tests. That is a parameter case within one behavioral family.
  • eip.md · Specification — "The instruction `MCOPY` is introduced at `0xb7`." Opcode 0xb7, previously undefined, becomes valid.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "Already deployed contracts using this instruction could change their behaviour" Code containing 0xb7 that used to halt as an invalid instruction now executes MCOPY.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No test suite was supplied, so the affected cases are estimated from the specification.
Security risks1The security conditions are local: memory bounds and offset overflow, zero-length handling, and correct overlapping copies. They can be checked within the EVM interpreter without changing other components' assumptions.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "TBA" No security analysis is provided.
  • eip.md · Semantics — "allowing the destination and source to overlap" Correctness depends on handling overlap and memory bounds properly.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The Security Considerations section is a placeholder (TBA).
Performance risks1The changed workload is per-word memory copying, including large overlapping copies, at 3 gas per word. Component benchmarks of MCOPY throughput against its gas price are enough; no subsystems are coupled.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "copying 256 bytes costs ... 27 gas using this EIP" Bulk memory copying becomes much cheaper per byte than with existing methods.
  • eip.md · Gas costs Cost is 3 gas per word plus memory expansion.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No benchmark data was supplied.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1There are local omissions and textual inconsistencies: the Semantics gas formula omits memory expansion, and the zero-length, out-of-range-offset case is only implied. The surrounding rules, the deferral to W_copy, and the explicit length > 0 condition support a single intended outcome.
  • eip.md · Semantics — "The gas cost of this instruction mirrors that of other `Wcopy` instructions and is `Gverylow + Gcopy * ceil(length / 32)`." This formula leaves out memory expansion, unlike the Gas costs section and the preceding Semantics paragraph.
  • eip.md · Gas costs — "While the calculation in the yellow paper should be considered the final word" Defers to the yellow paper's W_copy rules, which settles the intended outcome.
  • eip.md · Semantics — "If `length > 0` and ..." Only implies, without stating outright, that zero-length copies with out-of-range offsets cause no expansion and no failure.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The case where src+length or dst+length overflows is not discussed explicitly. It presumably follows existing copy-opcode memory rules.
Show 22 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes0No existing instruction's semantics or availability change. Turning an undefined byte into MCOPY is counted under Added opcodes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only a new instruction is defined; no existing instruction's semantics change.
Added precompiles0No new precompile.
  • eip.md · Motivation The identity precompile is mentioned only for comparison; no precompile is added.
Modified precompiles0No precompile semantics or gas changes.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "Its cost is `15 + 3 * (length / 32)` gas" The identity precompile is described but left unchanged.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added.
  • eip.md · Specification No protocol-designated contracts.
Modified system contracts0No existing system contract changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are affected.
EVM Gas rule changes0No existing gas rule or parameter changes, and no new accounting mechanism is added. The new instruction is charged under the existing W_copy and memory-expansion rules, so gas results for baseline operations are unchanged. The new opcode's own gas tests are counted under Added opcodes and Edge conditions.
  • eip.md · Gas costs — "it should be considered part of the `W_copy` group of opcodes" MCOPY reuses the existing W_copy gas formula (Gverylow + Gcopy per word + memory expansion), with no new accounting rule.
  • eip.md · Semantics — "The gas cost of this instruction mirrors that of other `Wcopy` instructions" Confirms MCOPY reuses the existing copy-cost schedule.
Uncertainty: A reviewer could treat adding a member to the W_copy schedule as a level-1 change. The rubric's exclusion of ordinary use of existing rules supports 0.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0MCOPY does not access state, and no existing instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Semantics — "It copies `length` bytes from the offset pointed at `src` to the offset pointed at `dst` in memory." MCOPY only touches memory; it reads or writes no account or storage state.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification covers only one memory instruction; blob gas is not mentioned.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Semantics MCOPY has memory effects only and writes no persistent state.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Gas costs Only charges are defined; there are no refunds.
New transaction types0No new transaction type.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction envelope is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No transaction-validity changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction validity or intrinsic gas rules are mentioned.
New block / header fields0No new header or block member.
  • eip.md · Specification No header fields.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No schema or codec changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No serialized objects change.
Block syncing changes0Execution-rule change only.
  • eip.md · Specification No block decoding or structural validation changes.
New fork activation mechanism0Only a rule selection at the fork; no activation-specific state transition.
  • eip.md · Specification No state migration or code installation at activation.
Engine API changes0No Engine API changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API is mentioned.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool input, output or protocol changes are required.
  • eip.md · Specification Only EVM execution semantics change; no block, transaction or environment fields are added.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no additional assertion.
  • eip.md · Output stack — "This instruction returns no stack items." There is no new log, receipt, header or storage output.
New test-framework primitives0Memory results can be checked by writing them to storage or returning them with existing opcodes. No new abstraction is needed.
  • eip.md · Test Cases The test cases are pre/post memory images, which can be checked with existing bytecode and storage-assertion primitives.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism changes.
  • eip.md · Abstract A memory copy instruction; no cryptography is involved.
Cross-EIP interactions0MCOPY does not interact with EIP-2929's warm/cold access sets or call pricing. The citation is motivational only, so no coordinated cross-EIP cases are needed.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "the subsequent reduction by EIP-2929 made it slightly more economical" EIP-2929 is cited only to motivate the comparison with identity-precompile call costs.
  • supporting/eip-2929.md · Storage read changes EIP-2929 governs account and storage access costs, which MCOPY never touches.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@e9b6a228f0 EIPS/eip-5656.md committed 2023-05-11 · information cutoff 2023-05-25
Current master · File history · blob 3682a57c25 · sha256 96c6320bdf15
Rubric
Checklist revision 3 · ethspecs/pm@fe2f793b03
Evaluator
Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5) at high effort, one tool-less call per EIP · isolation bubblewrap_claude_p_no_tools_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/10-opus-v3-reassessment/retrospective/outputs/assessments/cancun/eip-5656.yaml · sha256 7b6f89f23886
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-2929.md
Compare EIP-5656 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 · not in checklist revision 1
    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 · not in checklist revision 1
    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 · not in checklist revision 1
    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 · not in checklist revision 1
    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 · not in checklist revision 1
    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.