Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-6049: Deprecate SELFDESTRUCT

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

RetrospectiveShanghai / ShapellaAssessment cutoff 2023-01-19Added after cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 3
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2022-12-20 · 7c8e7e6eb5

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-6049 deprecated the existing SELFDESTRUCT opcode by directing its documentation to warn against use and to flag a possible future breaking change. It made no client or current opcode-behavior change; the possible future change remained outside this proposal's scope.

3LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
No
Plausible range
3–3 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2023-01-19 · EIP revision 7c8e7e6eb5 (2022-12-20)
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. Modified opcodes3

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No

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

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

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (1)
  • The Modified opcodes anchor assigns score 3 to deprecation explicitly, although this EIP operationalizes deprecation solely through non-normative documentation and makes no current opcode-behavior or client change.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-6049 Shanghai / Shapella: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes3The score-3 anchor explicitly applies when a pre-existing opcode is deprecated; SELFDESTRUCT is deprecated here even though its current behavior is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Title and description, lines 2-4; Abstract, lines 12-14 The proposal explicitly deprecates the existing SELFDESTRUCT opcode and warns against its use.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The deprecation is implemented as a non-normative documentation warning and does not change client behavior.
Confidence: High
Show 27 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added; naming and deprecating an existing opcode satisfies the score-0 anchor for additions.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 12-14 The proposal concerns deprecation of the already existing SELFDESTRUCT opcode.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced, satisfying score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22 The only specified action is updating documentation for SELFDESTRUCT.
Modified precompiles0No precompile behavior or gas schedule is modified, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The proposal changes SELFDESTRUCT documentation only and makes no client change.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced, satisfying the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22 The complete specified action is an update to SELFDESTRUCT documentation.
Modified system contracts0The proposal neither directly nor indirectly modifies a pre-existing system contract, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 Only opcode documentation changes, and no client change applies.
EVM Gas rule changes0No gas schedule or gas-accounting mechanism is changed, satisfying the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The proposal changes only opcode documentation and expressly says no client changes apply.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No state access or gas-charge position within SELFDESTRUCT or any other opcode changes, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 Only non-normative documentation is updated; opcode execution in clients is unchanged.
Blob gas accounting changes0The proposal introduces no blob-gas rule or mechanism, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The only specified action is a documentation warning, with no client change.
State gas accounting changes0No state-writing charge, rate, budget, reservoir, or spill rule changes, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The proposal is limited to non-normative documentation and requires no client change.
New EVM gas refund0No new gas-refund mechanism is introduced, satisfying the score-0 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The EIP changes documentation only and makes no change to client execution.
New transaction types0No transaction type is introduced, satisfying score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22 The proposal is confined to a warning in SELFDESTRUCT documentation.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Transaction validity rules and intrinsic gas calculations are unchanged, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 Only documentation is updated, and clients require no change.
New block / header fields0No block or header field is introduced, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22 The only specified action is updating documentation for an opcode.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No transaction, block, or interface encoding changes, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The EIP specifies only non-normative opcode-documentation changes.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP validation mechanism is introduced, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 No client changes apply because the EIP updates non-normative text only.
New fork activation mechanism0It requires no activation-block state or internal-variable modification, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The EIP applies no client change and only updates non-normative text.
Engine API changes0No Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism is introduced, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The EIP updates opcode documentation and specifies no client or interface modification.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool field or interface mechanism is required, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The proposal expressly requires no client changes because it updates non-normative text only.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0With no executable or validation rule changed, no pre-existing protocol tests require reworking; the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The EIP says its update is to non-normative Yellow Paper text and that no client changes apply.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Pre-existing tests gain no new protocol invariant to assert, matching score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 Documentation gains a warning, while client behavior and protocol outputs remain unchanged.
New test-framework primitives0Existing test primitives suffice because no protocol test suite is introduced; the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The proposal has only a documentation effect and no client-level behavior to test.
Security risks0A documentation warning introduces no executable mechanism that could compromise stakeholders if implemented incorrectly, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32; Security Considerations, lines 34-36 The EIP specifies no client change and records no security considerations.
Performance risks0No runtime mechanism requiring performance validation is introduced or modified, satisfying score 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 Documentation is updated without any client or execution-behavior change.
Edge/boundary conditions0The proposal introduces no executable mechanism with edge or boundary conditions, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The specified change is solely a warning in documentation, not a behavior change.
Cryptography0No cryptographic functionality is introduced or modified, satisfying score 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 12-14; Specification, lines 20-22 The EIP deprecates SELFDESTRUCT through a documentation warning and specifies no other mechanism.
Cross-EIP interactions0The deprecation is self-contained and the package establishes no interaction with another EIP, satisfying score 0.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 16-18; Specification, lines 20-22 The text mentions ongoing discussion of a future SELFDESTRUCT change but specifies only a documentation warning and identifies no other EIP dependency, modification, or conflict.
Uncertainty: No numbered or otherwise concrete interacting proposal is identified in the package.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus0Within this EIP's assessment-time scope, no constructible protocol case needs a newly agreed answer, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 12-14; Specification, lines 20-22; Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-32 The EIP limits its present action to a documentation warning; a possible breaking behavior change is future work and current clients do not change.
Uncertainty: The future SELFDESTRUCT behavior is deliberately unresolved but is outside this proposal's normative scope.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@7c8e7e6eb5 EIPS/eip-6049.md committed 2022-12-20 · information cutoff 2023-01-19
Current master · File history · blob f0159cb299 · sha256 1309a3404286
Rubric
Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator
gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/05-retrospective-complexity-assignment/outputs/fork-eips/shanghai/eip-6049.yaml · sha256 908033e8bf2f
Compare EIP-6049 with other assessmentsAll Shanghai / Shapella assessments
Criterion legend and glossary

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

EVM surface

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

  • 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.