Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7594: PeerDAS - Peer Data Availability Sampling

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

RetrospectiveOsaka / FusakaAssessment cutoff 2024-09-27Included by cutoffLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 0
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2024-06-17 · 4353b530c3

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7594 (revision 4353b530, Networking category) adds peer data availability sampling for beacon nodes. EIP-4844 blobs are extended with a one-dimensional erasure code and split into cells, each verifiable against the blob's KZG commitment. Columns of cells are spread across gossip subnets, and each node custodies a set of columns chosen deterministically from its node ID. Nodes sample columns from peers each slot and can rebuild the full matrix once they hold at least 50% of the columns. All detailed rules are delegated to the consensus-specs das-core document. That document defines only consensus-layer containers, helpers, custody, gossip and sampling, and states no execution-layer, Engine API or blob-gas parameter changes.

0LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range
0–4 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2024-09-27 · EIP revision 4353b530c3 (2024-06-17)
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

Every criterion scored zero.

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 EIP delegates everything to the consensus-specs das-core document. Its Rationale is TBD, Security Considerations is a placeholder, and Backwards Compatibility is empty. It never says whether the execution layer must change anything, such as Engine API blob bundles, cell proofs in the mempool wrapper, or blob limits to deliver the stated scaling. The supplied helper computes cells and proofs from plain blobs, which supports zero execution-layer impact. Implied execution-layer work cannot be ruled out entirely.

Plausible total

0–4
recorded score 0 · plausible tiers Low

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • Must the execution layer supply blobs or cell proofs to the consensus layer through a new or changed Engine API method?
  • Is the EIP-4844 pooled-transaction network wrapper unchanged, or must it carry cell proofs?
  • Is the motivation's scaling beyond EIP-4844 levels meant to come with a blob target or limit change in the same fork?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The specification body is a short overview that points to an external consensus-specs commit. The supplied das-core copy may not match that pinned commit exactly.
  • The das-core document references MAX_BLOBS_PER_BLOCK, compute_cells, recover_all_cells and compute_cells_and_kzg_proofs, which are defined in documents not supplied.
  • Rationale is TBD and Security Considerations says 'Needs discussion'.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7594 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Show 28 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new opcode.
  • eip.md · Specification No EVM instruction is introduced.
Modified opcodes0No instruction semantics change.
  • eip.md · Specification BLOBHASH and other instructions are not touched.
Added precompiles0No new precompile.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is introduced.
Modified precompiles0No precompile change.
  • eip.md · Specification The EIP-4844 point evaluation precompile is not referenced or changed.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is mentioned.
Modified system contracts0No system contract is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is mentioned.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas charging, metering or limit changes are specified.
  • eip.md · Specification Specifies only erasure-coding extension, column subnets, custody and sampling; no execution-gas rule is mentioned.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Networking protocol for beacon nodes; no EVM instruction behavior is touched.
Blob gas accounting changesUnder-specified0Neither document changes blob-gas charging, pricing, limits or settlement. The scaling goal is not tied to any parameter change.
  • eip.md · Motivation - "scaling data availability beyond the levels of EIP-4844" States a goal of more data availability but specifies no blob-gas parameter or pricing change.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Data size - MAX_CELLS_IN_EXTENDED_MATRIX Uses the existing MAX_BLOBS_PER_BLOCK (768 = 6*128); no new blob limit is defined.
Uncertainty: The motivation suggests higher blob limits later, but this revision specifies none.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting is changed.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-writing accounting is mentioned.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is mentioned.
New transaction types0No new transaction type.
  • eip.md · Specification Reuses EIP-4844 blobs; no new transaction envelope.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No consensus transaction-validity rule change.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation Blob transaction validity is defined by EIP-4844 and is not changed by the target.
New block / header fields0No execution-layer header or block member is added.
  • eip.md · Specification No execution header field is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Only consensus-layer containers are added. No execution-layer transaction, block, receipt, Engine API or peer-message schema changes.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Containers - DataColumnSidecar The new SSZ container is a consensus-layer gossip object.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Networking - "rlp([tx_payload_body, blobs, commitments, proofs])" The execution-layer blob transaction network wrapper is defined by EIP-4844, and EIP-7594 does not modify it.
Uncertainty: The EIP is silent on whether the execution-layer pooled-transaction wrapper must carry cell proofs. Nothing in the supplied text requires it.
Block syncing changes0No execution-block RLP decoding or structural validation change. The sync changes are consensus-layer only.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · A note on fork choice Availability checks replace is_data_available() in consensus-layer fork choice; execution-block decoding is untouched.
New fork activation mechanism0No activation-specific execution-layer transition.
  • eip.md · Specification No execution-layer state migration or code installation.
Engine API changesUnder-specified0The supplied text specifies no Engine API change.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API method or field is mentioned.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · get_data_column_sidecars(signed_block, blobs) Takes plain blobs as input and computes cells and proofs, so no new execution-layer-supplied data is implied.
Uncertainty: The EIP has no Backwards Compatibility section. It does not say how the proposer gets blobs, or whether it gets cell proofs from the execution layer.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool field or mechanism change is required.
  • eip.md · Specification No execution state-transition input or output is altered.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0No baseline execution-layer test needs changed inputs or expected results.
  • eip.md · Specification Changes are confined to beacon-node networking and custody.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Custody / Column gossip / Peer sampling All rules concern consensus-layer gossip subnets, custody and Req/Resp sampling.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no new assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification No new header, receipt, log or block-commitment output is introduced.
New test-framework primitives0No execution-layer framework abstraction is needed.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Containers - DataColumnSidecar New structures are consensus-layer SSZ containers, not execution-layer test artifacts.
Security risks0No execution-layer security boundary is introduced or changed.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations - "Needs discussion." No security analysis is given. The described risks (sampling, peer scoring) are consensus-layer networking concerns.
Uncertainty: The security section is a placeholder.
Performance risks0The workload changes are confined to the consensus layer. No execution-layer resource bound changes.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · Reconstruction and cross-seeding Reconstruction and erasure-coding workloads run on beacon nodes.
Uncertainty: If blob limits were raised to use the extra capacity, execution-layer mempool load could grow, but this revision raises none.
Edge/boundary conditions0No boundary-sensitive execution-layer rule is introduced or changed.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · get_custody_columns Boundary-sensitive logic (UINT256_MAX wrap, custody_subnet_count bound) is consensus-layer only.
CryptographyUnder-specified0The new cell-proof cryptography runs in the consensus layer. No execution-layer verification, signing or hashing rule changes.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · get_data_column_sidecars - "compute_cells_and_kzg_proofs(blob)" Cell KZG proofs are computed by the consensus layer from blobs during sidecar construction.
  • eip.md · Specification - "smallest units that can be authenticated with their respective blob's KZG commitments" Cell-level KZG verification is part of beacon-node data availability checking.
Uncertainty: The EIP does not say whether the execution mempool or blob bundles must carry cell proofs. The supplied helper has the consensus layer compute them itself.
Cross-EIP interactions0The dependency on EIP-4844 does not change any execution-layer behavior, so no coordinated execution-layer interaction cases are needed.
  • eip.md · Specification - "We extend the blobs introduced in EIP-4844" Builds on EIP-4844 blobs in the consensus layer only. EIP-4844's execution-layer rules (transaction, BLOBHASH, precompile, blob gas) are unchanged.
Uncertainty: Unresolved Engine API or blob-bundle changes could add EIP-4844 interaction cases if a later revision specifies them.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus0The open questions are consensus-layer matters (fork choice, timing). No execution-layer-observable outcome is left unresolved.
  • eip.md · Rationale - "TBD"; Backwards Compatibility (empty) Several sections are empty, but the gaps concern consensus-layer networking.
  • supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md · A note on fork choice - "Fork choice spec TBD" Fork-choice detail is unresolved but is consensus-layer only.
Uncertainty: Whether any execution-layer interface change is needed is not addressed. This is recorded as under-specification, not as an execution-layer omission.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@4353b530c3 EIPS/eip-7594.md committed 2024-06-17 · information cutoff 2024-09-27T18:42:32Z
Current master · File history · blob 3d9747d143 · sha256 bf2501c16c94
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/osaka/eip-7594.yaml · sha256 7dbb37f1e351
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-4844.md, supporting/ethereum-consensus-specs--specs-_features-eip7594-das-core.md
Compare EIP-7594 with other assessmentsAll Osaka / Fusaka 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.