EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7610: Revert creation in case of non-empty storage

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

RetrospectiveAmsterdam / GlamsterdamAssessment cutoff 2025-09-24Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 10

Human Completescore 7 · Checklist revision 1· merged checklist

LLM · Checklist revision 32026-10-08 · Opus 5.5 · primary · 10 Human · Checklist revision 1Complete · 7 CompareHuman vs LLM · shared criteria

Evaluated on: 2026-10-08 · Spec revision: 2024-11-07 · fd89c8f734

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7610 extends the EIP-684 address-collision rule for contract creation. Creation by a creation transaction, CREATE, CREATE2 or any other route MUST throw, as if the first init-code byte were an invalid opcode, when the destination has a nonzero nonce, nonzero code length or non-empty storage. Non-empty storage is the new condition. The rule MUST apply retroactively to all existing blocks, although the Backwards Compatibility section also says a hard fork is required. The EIP says coverage will come from refilling existing tests that deploy to addresses with storage.

10LowLow

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v3
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 2 criteria affected
Plausible range: 9–11 (Low)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-09-24 · EIP revision fd89c8f734 (2024-11-07)

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.

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 normative text requires retroactive application, while the Backwards Compatibility section says a hard fork is required. This leaves expected behavior for pre-Amsterdam fixtures slightly unclear, though the normative MUST favors retroactive application. The target also does not say how a storage-only account with zero balance (empty under EIP-161) is treated after a failed creation, i.e. whether it is touched and deleted.

Plausible total

9–11
recorded score 10 · plausible tiers Low

Affected criteria (2)

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (2)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (1)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)

Does the rule apply retroactively in pre-Amsterdam test forks, or only from the Amsterdam hard fork?
Is a storage-only account with zero balance touched by a failed creation attempt, and so deleted as empty under EIP-161 at the end of the transaction?
Does 'non-empty storage' refer to committed storage (storage root) or to current in-transaction storage?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

Retroactive application (Specification) versus 'requires a hard fork' (Backwards Compatibility).
The EIP-161 definition of an empty account ignores storage, so storage-only collision targets with zero balance may interact with state clearing.
The EIP says to refill existing tests but gives no new explicit test vectors.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7610 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes	3	The semantics of CREATE and CREATE2 change: they fail, return zero on the stack and leave no deployment, for destinations that have storage but zero nonce and no code. This goes beyond a gas-only change.	eip.md · Specification — "the `CREATE` opcode, the `CREATE2` opcode ... the creation MUST throw" CREATE and CREATE2 now fail with an exceptional halt in a case where they previously proceeded. Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	2	Ordinary cases throughout the creation-collision family need new expected results: post-state, gas consumed and the success flag returned by CREATE/CREATE2. The affected paths are creation transactions, CREATE and CREATE2 at storage-only destinations, which share one rule rather than requiring a common rewrite across distinct families. The retroactive rule extends the rework to earlier-fork fixtures within that family.	eip.md · Test Cases — "There exists quite a number of tests ... which test the scenario of deployment to targets with non-empty storage" Existing tests that create contracts at storage-only addresses have expected results that change and need refilling. eip.md · Test Cases — "Reth and EELS both intentionally implement a version of the account reset solely to pass the tests" Baseline expectations currently encode account-reset behavior, which now becomes a creation failure. eip.md · Specification — "MUST apply retroactively for all existing blocks" Because the rule is retroactive, expected results change for fixtures of earlier forks too. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: No test suite was supplied, so the number of tests and how they spread across families is estimated. If storage-only pre-states appear in many unrelated families, the score could approach 3.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	Coordinated cases are needed for the combined EIP-684 + EIP-7610 collision predicate: nonce × code × storage across all creation routes. EIP-161 empty-account semantics also need coordinated cases for storage-only accounts with zero balance used as collision targets. These cases go beyond local checks but do not restructure shared vectors across many EIPs.	eip.md · Specification — "This EIP amends [EIP-684] with one extra condition" Directly extends the EIP-684 collision predicate. eip.md · Rationale — "Before [EIP-161] was applied, the nonce of a newly deployed contract remained set to zero" Storage-only accounts arise from creation behavior before EIP-161. supporting/eip-161.md · Specification d. — "any account _touched_ ... which is now _empty_ SHALL instead become non-existent" The EIP-161 definition of empty ignores storage, so it interacts with storage-only collision targets. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: How the EIP-161 touch/delete rule applies to storage-only accounts after a failed creation is not resolved in the supplied text. Interacting EIPs: EIP-684, EIP-161
Security risks	1	The new condition is a local collision check that can be validated within the creation logic. It does not change other components' trust assumptions.	eip.md · Security Considerations — "it enforces the imutability of deployed code" The invariant that deployed contracts are immutable is strengthened. eip.md · Rationale — "There exists 28 such contracts on Ethereum mainnet" Storage-only accounts exist on mainnet. Confidence: Medium
Edge/boundary conditions	1	Exactly one boundary-sensitive mechanism changes: the collision predicate, now including storage emptiness. Combinations of nonce, code and storage, across creation transactions, CREATE and CREATE2, form a matrix, but it belongs to a single mechanism.	eip.md · Specification — "nonzero nonce, a nonzero code length, or non-empty storage" One collision predicate gains a storage-emptiness dimension: storage empty versus at least one nonzero slot. supporting/eip-684.md · Specification The existing nonce and code conditions combine with the new storage condition. Confidence: High
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	1	The activation scope of the rule is a localized point of conflict. The normative MUST supports one intended outcome, retroactive application, which matches the plan to refill existing tests. The touch/delete behavior of storage-only empty accounts after a failed creation is not addressed in the target. It may be defined by baseline rules that were not supplied.	eip.md · Specification — "MUST apply retroactively for all existing blocks" The normative text makes the rule retroactive. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "requires a hard fork" This informative section suggests fork activation, which conflicts with retroactive application in pre-fork test fixtures. supporting/eip-161.md · Specification — "An account is considered _empty_ when it has no code and zero nonce and zero balance" Under EIP-161, an account with storage but zero balance counts as empty. Whether a failed creation touches such an account, and so deletes it, is not addressed. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Expected results for storage-only accounts with zero balance after a collision (touched and deleted under EIP-161, or left intact) may be specified in baseline rules not supplied. If not, the score would be 2.

Show 22 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	None.	eip.md · Specification No new instruction is defined.
Added precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification No precompile is introduced.
Modified precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification No precompile is changed.
Added system contracts	None.	eip.md · Specification No system contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts	None.	eip.md · Specification No system contract is referenced.
EVM Gas rule changes	No execution-gas charging, metering or settlement rule changes. Gas results change only because an existing halt rule now applies to more cases, and that is counted under PAT.	eip.md · Specification — "throw as if the first byte in the init code were an invalid opcode" The new collision case reuses the existing exceptional-halt outcome. No new gas accounting rule or parameter is defined.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	The check is an extra predicate on an account that the EIP-684 collision check already inspects. No instruction's access or gas-charge ordering is changed or newly specified.	eip.md · Specification — "destination address already has either a nonzero nonce, a nonzero code length, or non-empty storage" Adds a storage-emptiness condition to the existing destination check but specifies no ordering or access-list change. Uncertainty: One could argue that the storage-emptiness check is a new kind of state access. The text gives it no ordering or access-recording rule.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas rule changes.	eip.md · Specification Concerns only contract-creation collisions. Blobs are not mentioned.
State gas accounting changes	No state-gas accounting change.	eip.md · Specification No state-byte or state-gas costs are defined.
New EVM gas refund	No new refund.	eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is introduced.
New transaction types	None.	eip.md · Specification No new transaction envelope is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	The outcome is an execution failure, not a transaction-validity rule. Intrinsic gas and inclusion rules are unchanged.	eip.md · Specification — "creation MUST throw as if the first byte in the init code were an invalid opcode" A creation transaction that collides fails during execution. It does not become invalid for inclusion.
New block / header fields	None.	eip.md · Specification No header field is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	None.	eip.md · Specification No serialized schema changes.
Block syncing changes	Only an execution rule changes.	eip.md · Specification No block decoding or structural validation changes.
New fork activation mechanism	No one-time state transition is required at activation; the change selects a rule only.	eip.md · Specification — "MUST apply retroactively for all existing blocks" The rule applies retroactively; no state migration or code installation is specified. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "requires a hard fork" Describes rule activation only. Uncertainty: Whether the rule activates at a fork or retroactively is ambiguous, but neither reading needs a state transition.
Engine API changes	None.	eip.md · Specification No Engine API change.
Transition-tool interface changes	Existing allocation inputs can already express storage-only accounts, so no transition-tool interface change is needed.	eip.md · Specification Only an execution rule changes. No new inputs or outputs are defined.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Existing tests need no new kind of assertion; only existing expected values change.	eip.md · Specification No new output, field or log is produced.
New test-framework primitives	Testing needs pre-state accounts with storage but zero nonce and no code, plus existing creation primitives. No new abstraction is required.	eip.md · Test Cases — "Refilling the existing tests will provide sufficient coverage" Coverage comes from existing tests and pre-state setups.
Performance risks	The supplied evidence establishes no changed resource bound or workload needing benchmarks. A storage-emptiness lookup per creation is bounded.	eip.md · Specification — "non-empty storage" Adds a storage-emptiness check on the creation path. The supplied text does not claim any performance cost. Uncertainty: On some client storage layouts, a storage-emptiness check may cost more than reading the nonce or code. The supplied text does not address this.
Cryptography	No cryptographic change.	eip.md · Specification No cryptographic rule is involved.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@fd89c8f734 EIPS/eip-7610.md committed 2024-11-07 · information cutoff 2025-09-24T14:40:52Z
Current master · File history · blob 6e7d1900da · sha256 32737f15ce36
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/amsterdam/eip-7610.yaml · sha256 30797d821deb
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP: supporting/eip-161.md, supporting/eip-684.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded · Spec revision: 2025-11-06 · 7707fe3333

7LowLow

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v1
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2026-01-09 · EIP at 7707fe3333
Source: merged ethspecs/pm checklist

Score bands · Checklist revision 1

Low <10
Medium 10–19
High ≥20

24 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 72.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the Human total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
Transition-tool interface changes2

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7610 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	3	Some static tests might break as noted by Pawel in the magicians thread.	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	The EIP is an even stricter version of `684`, adding the rule that the storage also has to be empty.	—
Transition-tool interface changes	2	EELS might be updated to handle this EIP.	—

Show 21 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 1)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	—
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	—
New block / header fields	No rationale recorded.	—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No rationale recorded.	—
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New fork activation mechanism	No rationale recorded.	—
Engine API changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Engine API encoding changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Security risks	The EIP helps improve security.	—
Performance risks	No rationale recorded.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	No rationale recorded.	—
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	No rationale recorded.	—

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@7707fe3333 EIPS/eip-7610.md committed 2025-11-06
EIP master revision at the time of the human checklist commit; the checklist itself does not pin an EIP revision.
Current master · File history · blob 5e96d30303 · sha256 e934db8fded8
Rubric: Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Merged checklist ethspecs/pm@0a80baf174 complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7610.md · committed 2026-01-09
blob d9250b95ed · sha256 ebca2ea04f8f
Research record: research/tasks/05c-amsterdam-human-assessment-alignment/inputs/human/eip-7610.yaml · sha256 2bd91d1cf2c5

The LLM applied checklist revision 3 and the human reviewers revision 1 to EIP-7610 in Amsterdam / Glamsterdam. Revision 3 phrases the same criteria more precisely; differences cover the 23 criteria both revisions share, and each total keeps its own revision. Δ is LLM minus Human.

LLM10Low

Human7Low

Δ total+3Same tier

Criteria16/23agree exactly · 3 differ by 1 · 4 differ by 2+

Confounded comparison. The human checklist evaluated the EIP as it stood when the checklist was written; the LLM evaluated the sealed historical revision. Input alignment: substantive drift; human hindsight exposure: possible exposure.

Exposure evidence

The assessment cites a Magicians observation and possible EELS work, but describes the implementation as prospective.

Substantive intervening revisions: Adds an explicit EIP-7702 non-interference statement to the Specification (PR #10734): 'This EIP will not affect EIP-7702, since the authority's nonce is always incremented after an authorization is applied, which conflicts with the condition required for contract deployment.' Simultaneously deletes the Rationale sentence 'As one of the core tenets of smart contracts is that its code will not change...'.

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Modified opcodes (+3), Transition-tool interface changes (−2), New or modified transaction validity mechanisms (−2), Cross-EIP interactions (+2), Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (−1)

Show differences only (13 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Modified opcodes	3	0	+3	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The semantics of CREATE and CREATE2 change: they fail, return zero on the stack and leave no deployment, for destinations that have storage but zero nonce and no code. This goes beyond a gas-only change. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	2	−2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The outcome is an execution failure, not a transaction-validity rule. Intrinsic gas and inclusion rules are unchanged. Human The EIP is an even stricter version of `684`, adding the rule that the storage also has to be empty.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	2	−2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Existing allocation inputs can already express storage-only accounts, so no transition-tool interface change is needed. Human EELS might be updated to handle this EIP.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Coordinated cases are needed for the combined EIP-684 + EIP-7610 collision predicate: nonce × code × storage across all creation routes. EIP-161 empty-account semantics also need coordinated cases for storage-only accounts with zero balance used as collision targets. These cases go beyond local checks but do not restructure shared vectors across many EIPs. Human No rationale recorded.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	3	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Ordinary cases throughout the creation-collision family need new expected results: post-state, gas consumed and the success flag returned by CREATE/CREATE2. The affected paths are creation transactions, CREATE and CREATE2 at storage-only destinations, which share one rule rather than requiring a common rewrite across distinct families. The retroactive rule extends the rework to earlier-fork fixtures within that family. Human Some static tests might break as noted by Pawel in the magicians thread.
Security risks	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The new condition is a local collision check that can be validated within the creation logic. It does not change other components' trust assumptions. Human The EIP helps improve security.
Edge/boundary conditions	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Exactly one boundary-sensitive mechanism changes: the collision predicate, now including storage emptiness. Combinations of nonce, code and storage, across creation transactions, CREATE and CREATE2, form a matrix, but it belongs to a single mechanism. Human No rationale recorded.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No execution-gas charging, metering or settlement rule changes. Gas results change only because an existing halt rule now applies to more cases, and that is counted under PAT. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas rule changes. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new refund. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Only an execution rule changes. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No one-time state transition is required at activation; the change selects a rule only. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Performance risks	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The supplied evidence establishes no changed resource bound or workload needing benchmarks. A storage-emptiness lookup per creation is bounded. Human No rationale recorded.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic change. Human No rationale recorded.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM The check is an extra predicate on an account that the EIP-684 collision check already inspects. No instruction's access or gas-charge ordering is changed or newly specified. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM No state-gas accounting change. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API encoding changes	n/a	0	—	Only in revision 1	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Existing tests need no new kind of assertion; only existing expected values change. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Testing needs pre-state accounts with storage but zero nonce and no code, plus existing creation primitives. No new abstraction is required. Human No rationale recorded.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	1	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM The activation scope of the rule is a localized point of conflict. The normative MUST supports one intended outcome, retroactive application, which matches the plan to refill existing tests. The touch/delete behavior of storage-only empty accounts after a failed creation is not addressed in the target. It may be defined by baseline rules that were not supplied. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-7610 with other assessments All Amsterdam / Glamsterdam 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.

OP+
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.
PC+
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.
ORD
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.
SGAS
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.
ENC
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.
ACT
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).
T8N
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.).
INV
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.

XEIP
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.
UNSP
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.