Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7251: Increase the MAX_EFFECTIVE_BALANCE

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 2024-03-21Included by cutoffLayers: execution, consensus
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: 2024-01-31 · faccff3ac9

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7251 (revision faccff3a) raises MAX_EFFECTIVE_BALANCE to 2048 ETH and adds MIN_ACTIVATION_BALANCE (32 ETH) and a 0x02 COMPOUNDING_WITHDRAWAL_PREFIX. Its 18-point change sketch covers consensus-layer containers, churn, deposit queues, aggregator selection and withdrawal-sweep functions. Its Execution layer section says "This requires no changes to the Execution Layer." It also lists EL-triggered partial withdrawals as a defining feature and attributes them to EIP-7002. The supplied EIP-7002 defines only full exits keyed by a 48-byte pubkey and has no amount field.

3LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 9 criteria affected
Plausible range
1–16 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2024-03-21 · EIP revision faccff3ac9 (2024-01-31)
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. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2
  2. Cross-EIP interactions1

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: The target says the EL needs no changes, yet lists EL-triggered partial withdrawals 'part of EIP-7002' as a defining feature. The supplied EIP-7002 supports only full exits: a 48-byte pubkey input and an exit operation without an amount. Whether and how an amount is carried through the EL precompile, block body, exits_root and Engine payload is unresolved.

Plausible total

1–16
recorded score 3 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • Does an EL partial withdrawal require an amount field in the EIP-7002 precompile input (making it more than 48 bytes) and in the exit operation RLP/SSZ?
  • If so, is that change owned by EIP-7002 or by EIP-7251, given that EIP-7251 says it needs no EL changes?
  • How are amount-zero and amount-nonzero requests distinguished, and does the fee or queue layout change?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • Two statements conflict: 'This requires no changes to the Execution Layer' and the defining feature 'Adding execution layer partial withdrawals (part of EIP-7002)'.
  • Numbering errors in the CL change sketch (duplicate 6 and 10) do not affect EL scope.
  • Removing the initial slashing penalty is 'still in discussion' and is CL-only.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7251 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2The two documents compete on what EL partial withdrawals look like. The EL either stays unchanged, or the EIP-7002 precompile input, exit operation and payload gain an amount. Neither document defines the format, so expected EL results for partial-withdrawal requests cannot be fixed without agreement. The conflict is localized to this one mechanism, which is level 2.
  • eip.md · Execution layer — "This requires no changes to the Execution Layer." States that there are no EL changes.
  • eip.md · Consensus layer — "Adding execution layer partial withdrawals (part of EIP-7002)" A defining feature lets EL messages trigger partial withdrawals of a chosen amount, e.g., up to 68 ETH.
  • supporting/eip-7002.md · Exit operation / Validator Exit precompile The supplied EIP-7002 has only a pubkey input and an exit operation with no amount, so it cannot express a partial withdrawal.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: A later EIP-7002 revision, not supplied, might define this. If so, this is an evidence gap rather than an omission, and the score would be 0–1.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified1With no EL change, EL testing only needs a local check that EIP-7002 exits still work unchanged in the combined fork. CL-side interactions with 0x02 credentials are excluded. Coordinated cases are not established by the supplied text.
  • eip.md · Preamble — "requires: 7002" EIP-7002 is a declared prerequisite.
  • eip.md · Rationale item 4 Validators with a raised ceiling would use EL-triggered partial withdrawals through EIP-7002.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: If EL partial withdrawals extend the EIP-7002 precompile and payload, coordinated cases would be needed (level 2).
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7002
Show 26 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new instructions.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes.
Modified opcodes0No instruction semantics change.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes.
Added precompiles0No new precompile is introduced; the EIP-7002 precompile is a prerequisite.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No new precompile is defined.
Modified precompilesUnder-specified0The target text does not change the EIP-7002 precompile. It assigns partial-withdrawal functionality to EIP-7002 and states that the EL is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Consensus layer — "Adding execution layer partial withdrawals (part of EIP-7002)" Assigns EL partial withdrawals to EIP-7002 rather than to this EIP.
  • supporting/eip-7002.md · Validator Exit precompile — "requires a single 48 byte input" The supplied precompile takes only a pubkey; it has no amount input.
  • eip.md · Execution layer States no EL changes.
Uncertainty: Supporting EL-triggered partial withdrawals would plausibly need an amount input on the EIP-7002 precompile, i.e., a behavior change to a precompile in the baseline. The supplied text does not establish who owns or defines that change.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced beyond the prerequisites.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No new system contract is defined.
Modified system contracts0No existing protocol-designated EVM contract is modified. The EIP-7002 mechanism in the supplied text is a stateful precompile.
  • supporting/eip-7002.md · Validator Exit precompile The supplied EIP-7002 defines a stateful precompile, not an EVM system contract.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes.
EVM Gas rule changes0No change to execution-gas charging, metering or limits is specified.
  • eip.md · Execution layer — "This requires no changes to the Execution Layer." The target states that it makes no EL changes, so no gas accounting rule is defined.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No change to instruction state-access or gas-charge ordering.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes, so no opcode ordering is affected.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas rule changes.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes; blobs are not mentioned.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes; no refunds are mentioned.
New transaction types0No new transaction envelope.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No transaction validity or intrinsic gas changes.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes.
New block / header fields0No EL header or block-level field is added by the target.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes; exits_root belongs to EIP-7002.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)Under-specified0The new containers (PendingDeposit, BeaconState fields) are CL-only and excluded. No EL object schema changes in this revision.
  • eip.md · Consensus layer — "Create the PendingDeposit container" New SSZ containers are CL-only BeaconState objects.
  • supporting/eip-7002.md · Exit operation The exit operation RLP has only source_address and validator_pubkey.
Uncertainty: A partial-withdrawal amount would add a field to the EIP-7002 exit operation RLP and the ExecutionLayerExit SSZ. This is unspecified here.
Block syncing changes0No EL block RLP decoding or structural validation changes.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No change to EL block structure or validity.
New fork activation mechanism0No activation-specific EL state transition.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The hard fork is for CL validation rules. No EL state migration is described.
Engine API changesUnder-specified0No Engine API fields or endpoints are added or changed by this revision.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes; no Engine API fields are defined.
  • eip.md · Consensus layer — "get_expected_withdrawals" Withdrawal values change but are carried in the existing schema.
Uncertainty: If an amount were added to EL-triggered exit/withdrawal messages, the ExecutionLayerExit payload field would change.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified0No transition-tool interface change is specified.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes; no t8n input or output is affected.
Uncertainty: An EL partial-withdrawal amount field, if required, could change the exit/request output of the transition tool. This is unresolved.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified0Under the target's stated scope, no EL baseline test needs changed inputs or expectations. Larger or different withdrawal amounts are new values within the existing EL withdrawal processing. They are not a rule change.
  • eip.md · Execution layer Says no EL changes are required.
  • eip.md · Consensus layer — "Modify get_expected_withdrawals to use excess balance" Withdrawal amounts change on the CL side; the EL only receives different values through the existing withdrawal schema.
Uncertainty: If EL partial withdrawals required changing the EIP-7002 exit precompile input, baseline EIP-7002 exit tests would need rework.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0No new assertion is required on baseline EL tests.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No new EL output, header field or storage write is defined.
New test-framework primitives0No additional EL framework abstraction is needed beyond the baseline and prerequisites.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL changes.
Security risksUnder-specified0No EL security boundary is introduced or changed in this revision.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations The security discussion covers committees, aggregators, proposer selection and churn, all of which are CL concerns.
Uncertainty: An EL-triggered partial-withdrawal amount would add an EL-to-CL validation boundary. This is unresolved here.
Performance risks0No changed EL workload is established.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — Proposer selection probability The performance effects described (proposer index computation, BeaconState size) are CL-only.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified0All boundary-sensitive rules (churn, excess balance, activation threshold) are consensus-layer only. No EL boundary rule changes.
  • eip.md · Constants MIN_ACTIVATION_BALANCE and MAX_EFFECTIVE_BALANCE are CL boundaries.
  • eip.md · Execution layer No EL rule changes.
Uncertainty: An EL partial-withdrawal amount would add a boundary-sensitive input (e.g., an amount of zero versus nonzero). This is unresolved.
Cryptography0No EL cryptographic rule changes.
  • eip.md · Consensus layer — "Modify is_aggregator to be weight-based" The VRF/aggregator changes are CL-only. The EL runs no new cryptography.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@faccff3ac9 EIPS/eip-7251.md committed 2024-01-31 · information cutoff 2024-03-21
Current master · File history · blob 3c63ca90e9 · sha256 15387221cbc1
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/prague/eip-7251.yaml · sha256 fbd7469a2667
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-7002.md
Compare EIP-7251 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 · 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.