Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-6110: Supply validator deposits on chain

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

RetrospectivePrague / PectraAssessment cutoff 2024-01-18Included by cutoffLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 36
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2023-10-12 · 46d979f902

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-6110 appended an ordered list of validator deposit operations to each post-fork execution block and added a header trie root committing to that list; the list was required to equal deposits parsed from deposit-contract logs produced by the block. It also extended the consensus ExecutionPayload and BeaconState, processed the new receipts while winding down the former Eth1Data deposit path, and made validator indices branch-dependent. The packaged fork document specified an irregular consensus-state upgrade, while several activation and interface details remained work in progress.

36HighHigh
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 6 criteria affected
Plausible range
32–40 (High)
Assessment cutoff
2024-01-18 · EIP revision 46d979f902 (2023-10-12)
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. New block / header fields3
  2. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  3. Block syncing changes3
  4. New fork activation mechanism3

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 the exact decoding and failure behavior for deposit event data, indexed-trie construction details in the illustrative helper, transition-tool and Engine API surface shape, and final fork configuration. The supporting consensus and fork documents also identify themselves as active-development or work-in-progress material.

Plausible total

32–40
recorded score 36 · plausible tiers High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • What exact byte-layout checks and failure result apply when parsing a log from DEPOSIT_CONTRACT_ADDRESS into the five deposit fields?
  • What exact key/object encoding does compute_trie_root_from_indexed_data use at all list sizes and boundary indices?
  • Which transition-tool and Engine API endpoints expose deposit_receipts and deposits_root, and in what encoded form?
  • What final timestamp/epoch coordination activates the execution and consensus changes together?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The EIP calls the execution-block items deposits while the consensus documents call them deposit receipts and commit to them with an SSZ payload-header root; the cross-layer mapping is clear in intent but not specified as an Engine API schema.
  • The rubric classification of the pre-existing deposit contract as a system contract materially affects the modified-system-contracts row.
  • One added ExecutionPayload member may traverse multiple Engine endpoints, but the package documents the field rather than endpoint-specific changes.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-6110 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
New block / header fields3The presence of a new block-body and header field triggers the binary anchor-3 definition.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block structure, lines 75-98 Post-fork block bodies gain a deposits list and block headers gain the new deposits_root field.
Confidence: High
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3A block-level RLP encoding change is explicit, so the binary anchor mandates score 3; the corresponding SSZ container extensions reinforce the interface impact.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Deposit and Block structure, lines 53-98 The EIP normatively defines deposit RLP and appends an RLP list to the block body plus deposits_root to the header.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-beacon-chain.md · Containers, lines 56-172 Consensus containers gain DepositReceipt, an ExecutionPayload list, an ExecutionPayloadHeader root, and a BeaconState field.
Confidence: High
Block syncing changesUnder-specified3Syncing clients face multiple new RLP/block validation mechanisms, including the complex requirement to execute the block and reproduce an ordered list from receipts. That satisfies anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Deposit, Block structure, and Block validity, lines 53-158 The EIP adds RLP encodings for deposits and the extended block body, a new header field, root validation, and execution-log equivalence validation.
Confidence: High
New fork activation mechanism3The consensus fork explicitly modifies state and internal variables at activation, which is the anchor-3 condition.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-fork.md · Fork to EIP-6110 -- Upgrading the state, lines 67-145 At the fork epoch an irregular state change rebuilds the payload header, updates the Fork object, and initializes deposit_receipts_start_index.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Definitions and Block structure, lines 49-51 and 75-90 The execution block format switches at the first block whose timestamp reaches the fork timestamp.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The concrete fork timestamp and epoch were TBD, but the specified activation state transition is unambiguous.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3Existing post-fork block tests across transaction, execution, static, invalid-block, and sync categories must be reworked for the extended block and derived validity rules. That is the diverse, major impact described by anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block structure and Block validity, lines 75-158 Every post-fork block gains a body list and header commitment, plus rules checking the commitment and exact ordered equivalence with execution logs.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 197-199 The EIP explicitly calls both the block-structure and block-validation changes backwards incompatible.
Confidence: High
Security risks3The change couples critical execution validation, consensus validator-registry updates, reorganization handling, optimistic sync, and weak-subjectivity assumptions. That multi-component security impact requires extensive review and fuzzing and matches anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Validator index invariant and Eth1Data poll deprecation, lines 175-181 The mechanism breaks reorg resilience of validator-index caches and transitions away from the former deposit polling path.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations -- Optimistic sync and Weak subjectivity period, lines 225-235 Optimistic nodes may apply finalized fake receipts under the honest-majority model, and the larger deposit throughput changes an input to weak subjectivity calculations.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block validity, lines 100-158 Execution clients become responsible for consensus-critical equivalence between block data and deposit-contract receipt logs.
Confidence: High
Performance risks3Performance cannot be assessed solely in isolation because receipt extraction affects execution validation while signature processing affects consensus and optimistic sync, with behavior coupled to gas limits and payload size. These substantial cross-component interactions satisfy anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations -- DoS vectors, lines 211-223 Worst-case analysis spans block gas, thousands of deposits, BLS signature verification time, and an optimistic-sync case of 8,192 deposits and about eight seconds of processing.
  • eip.md · Rationale -- Not limiting the size of deposit operations list, lines 189-191 The execution-layer deposit list has no explicit protocol count limit and instead relies on the economics and gas cost of deposit creation.
Confidence: High
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Fork boundaries, empty and first-receipt cases, transition-index crossings, log ordering, reorganizations, and high-volume limits form multiple boundary mechanisms, with the transition and volume dimensions requiring an elevated case matrix. This matches anchor 3.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-beacon-chain.md · Modified process_operations and process_deposit_receipt, lines 189-233 Processing branches around an unset start-index sentinel, the former deposit index and count, exact per-block limits, zero-deposit behavior, and first-receipt initialization.
  • eip.md · Validator index invariant, lines 175-177 Reorganizations can assign different indices to the same validator public key on different branches.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations -- DoS vectors, lines 211-223 The EIP analyzes high-volume blocks and optimistic-sync limits reaching thousands of receipts and signature verifications.
Confidence: High
Modified system contracts2Although contract code and state are untouched, the EIP gives the existing deposit contract a major indirect effect on execution-block validity and cross-layer processing. This fits anchor 2's major-indirect-effect case.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Configuration and Block validity, lines 41-47 and 114-155 The existing deposit contract's logs become the mandatory source of a new consensus-critical block-body list, without changing the contract code.
  • eip.md · Rationale -- Filtering events only by DEPOSIT_CONTRACT_ADDRESS, lines 193-195 Validity relies on the existing contract emitting no events other than its deposit event.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The rubric does not define whether the pre-existing deposit contract is classified as a system contract for this row.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified2Representing the new list and root, together with their derived-output relationship, requires multiple interface values or a new result mechanism, fitting anchor 2.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block structure, lines 75-98 The transition result now includes both an ordered deposits body list and its deposits_root header commitment.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block validity, lines 143-155 The list is derived from execution receipts and therefore must be exposed or derived by block-transition testing.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package does not define a transition-tool API, so the exact number and direction of interface fields are not fixed.
New invariant on pre-existing tests2A broad category of post-fork tests gains mechanically applicable root and list assertions, which fits anchor 2. The EIP does not require pre-fork vectors to acquire the post-fork fields, so anchor 3 is not supported.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block structure and Block validity, lines 75-158 Post-fork blocks must carry a deposits root matching the body list, and that list must match deposit-contract logs even when a test targets an unrelated behavior.
Confidence: High
Cross-EIP interactions2EIP-6110 changes the role of EIP-4881 and requires coordinated transition tests with the prior deposit path and inherited fork payload, but the interactions remain concentrated in deposit processing. This fits anchor 2.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 21-29 The new path removes Eth1Data voting and eliminates the requirement for deposit-contract snapshots defined by EIP-4881.
  • supporting/eip-4881.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-38 EIP-4881 standardizes the compressed deposit-tree snapshot and Beacon Node API endpoint that EIP-6110 makes unnecessary after its transition.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-beacon-chain.md · Introduction and Modified process_operations, lines 31-36 and 189-216 The feature extends the Deneb specification and coordinates the former deposit mechanism with receipt processing until a start-index boundary.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Only EIP-4881 is numbered in the package; the EIP numbers, if any, associated with the named Deneb baseline and former deposit mechanism are not supplied.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-4881
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Exact malformed-event decoding, trie construction at unusual cases, and cross-layer interface behavior require agreement before complete invalid-case vectors can be baselined, but the gaps are localized around the new deposit path. This fits anchor 2 rather than the broad re-baselining case in anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block validity, lines 114-155 The consensus-critical event decoder is only a function signature followed by pass, and the illustrative trie construction leaves exact indexed-key handling implicit.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-fork.md · Configuration and Fork trigger, lines 25-32 and 58-65 The configuration is declared non-definitive and the fork trigger remains TBD, with a testing-only epoch assumption.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-beacon-chain.md · Introduction, lines 31-36 The detailed consensus specification identifies itself as under active development.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Existing deposit-contract behavior may make some malformed-event cases unreachable on the intended network, but the package does not specify that reachability as a validity precondition.
Engine API changesUnder-specified1The package clearly adds one ExecutionPayload communication field, supporting the single-field anchor 1.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Consensus layer, lines 160-168 ExecutionPayload is extended with one deposit_receipts field carrying the deposit-operation list between the execution and consensus layers.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-beacon-chain.md · Modified process_execution_payload, lines 235-280 The consensus transition sends the extended payload through a NewPayloadRequest and caches a root of its deposit_receipts.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Engine method versions, JSON encoding, and whether the field appears in more than one endpoint are not specified in the package.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified1Existing block-test primitives need minor helper or expectation extensions for deposits and their commitment, fitting anchor 1; the text does not establish a permanent cross-EIP framework primitive.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block structure and Block validity, lines 90-155 Tests need reusable operations for computing the indexed trie root, parsing deposit-event data, and comparing the derived ordered list.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No test-framework design is packaged, so whether these are helpers or new reusable expectation primitives is unresolved.
Show 13 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is introduced, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Execution Layer, lines 31-158 The execution-layer specification adds block data and validation rules but defines no opcode.
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Execution Layer, lines 31-158 No existing opcode behavior is mentioned or changed by the block-level deposit mechanism.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Execution Layer, lines 31-158 The execution-layer additions contain no new precompile.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile is modified, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Execution Layer, lines 31-158 The proposal changes no precompile behavior or gas schedule.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Configuration, lines 41-47 The proposal configures the already existing deposit contract address and does not deploy a new contract.
EVM Gas rule changes0No EVM gas-accounting rule is introduced or updated, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations -- DoS vectors, lines 211-217 The proposal uses the deposit contract's existing gas costs only to bound deposit volume and explicitly describes them as current gas-pricing rules.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode execution ordering changes, so the anchor-0 definition applies.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block validity, lines 100-158 The new validity work occurs after block execution by examining receipts and logs; the passage changes no opcode-internal state-access or gas-charge order.
Blob gas accounting changes0The proposal adds no blob-gas rule or mechanism, matching anchor 0.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-beacon-chain.md · Extended Containers -- ExecutionPayload, lines 73-97 Existing data-gas members carry over and the only marked EIP-6110 payload addition is deposit_receipts.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas cost, charging site, budget, reservoir, or spill rule changes, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Execution Layer, lines 31-158 The execution-layer changes concern deposit encoding, block fields, trie commitment, and validity; they define no charge for writing state.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism is introduced, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Execution Layer, lines 31-158 The complete execution-layer mechanism contains no gas-refund behavior.
New transaction types0The proposal introduces no transaction type, matching anchor 0.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Block validity, lines 13-17 and 114-155 Existing deposit transactions emit logs from which block-level operations are derived; no new transaction envelope or type is defined.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0This is a block-validity change, not a transaction-validity or intrinsic-gas change, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification -- Block validity, lines 100-158 The new rules invalidate blocks when their root or deposit list is wrong; they do not invalidate or change intrinsic gas for individual transactions.
Cryptography0The path invokes existing deposit signature validation and introduces no new cryptographic mechanism, matching anchor 0.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-beacon-chain.md · New process_deposit_receipt, lines 218-233 Receipt processing forwards the existing public key and signature fields into apply_deposit rather than defining a new cryptographic operation.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations -- Consensus layer, lines 219-223 Signature verification is analyzed as the existing costly part of deposit processing, not as a newly introduced cryptographic mechanism.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@46d979f902 EIPS/eip-6110.md committed 2023-10-12 · information cutoff 2024-01-18
Current master · File history · blob d4226f1ea4 · sha256 0e5d1899fdef
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/prague/eip-6110.yaml · sha256 219ce3720527
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-4881.md, supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-beacon-chain.md, supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-validator.md, supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip6110-fork.md
Compare EIP-6110 with other assessmentsAll Prague / Pectra 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.