Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7623: Increase calldata cost

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 2024-04-11Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 16
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2024-04-03 · fd4ec86e3b

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-7623 was a draft execution-layer proposal that retained the existing weighted calldata-token calculation but added a transaction total-cost floor of 12 gas per token. The normal branch combined calldata, EVM execution, and contract-creation costs, so the floor would mainly raise the effective nonzero-calldata cost for low-computation data-availability transactions while leaving sufficiently computation-heavy transactions on the existing branch. Its stated purpose was to reduce maximum block size and make room for more blobs, and it required a scheduled network upgrade.

16MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 7 criteria affected
Plausible range
11–22 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2024-04-11 · EIP revision fd4ec86e3b (2024-04-03)
Score bands · Checklist revision 2
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

28 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 84.

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. EVM Gas rule changes3
  2. New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
  3. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
  4. Security risks2

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 draft establishes the numerical calldata floor but not its consensus-critical integration into transaction gas-limit checking, execution failure, unused-gas settlement, access-list and other intrinsic charges, receipts/block gas totals, or all existing transaction envelopes. The pseudocode is also syntactically incomplete, although the intended maximum is readable.

Plausible total

11–22
recorded score 16 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (6)
  • Is the total-cost floor an up-front intrinsic-gas requirement, a post-execution adjustment to gas used, or another charging phase?
  • What happens when execution fits within the transaction gas limit under the normal branch but the floor exceeds that limit?
  • Does evm_gas_used mean gas before or after EVM refund accounting, and how does the floor affect the sender's unused-gas refund and fee settlement?
  • Where do access-list charges and any other type-specific intrinsic costs enter relative to the maximum?
  • Does the rule apply identically to legacy, EIP-1559, and EIP-4844 transaction envelopes, including blob transactions that also pay independent blob gas?
  • What complete normative expression was intended by the unclosed pseudocode, and which existing EIP defines the referenced InitCodeWordGas interaction?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The replacement pseudocode opens a brace after tx.gasUsed and never closes the expression, while capitalization differs from the preceding tx.gasused example.
  • The formula describes gas used rather than explicitly defining intrinsic gas, remaining gas, out-of-gas behavior, or refund settlement.
  • Access-list intrinsic costs documented by the packaged EIP-1559 revision are absent from the replacement formula.
  • The phrase "transactions primarily using Ethereum for data availability" is implemented only indirectly through the cost crossover and is not a separately defined transaction classification.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7623 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
EVM Gas rule changes3The maximum is a new transaction gas-accounting mechanism, not merely a constant substitution. It competes with the existing calldata, execution, and creation cost calculation and therefore changes existing gas outcomes and vectors, matching anchor 3.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 32-65 The draft defines calldata tokens and replaces the prior additive transaction gas formula with a maximum between the existing-cost branch and a new 12-gas-per-token total-cost floor.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The floor's charging phase is not specified, but the introduction and effect of the new gas rule are explicit.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified2The new floor changes gas-limit and intrinsic/gas-used expectations for existing transaction cases and therefore their validity or execution boundary, but it appears expressible through limited vector updates without new testing infrastructure. Anchor 2 is the best-supported fit.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-65 The draft replaces the formula for transaction gas used with a higher calldata-sensitive floor that can exceed the former total for an otherwise unchanged transaction.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 79-83 The change is explicitly a backwards-incompatible gas repricing requiring a scheduled network upgrade.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: The draft does not state whether the floor is an up-front intrinsic requirement, a post-execution charge, or how a floor above the supplied gas limit is handled.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified2Existing gas, receipt, balance, and block-gas expectations for the bounded low-computation/high-calldata category must be reworked. This is a considerable but category-specific subset rather than a major diverse subset, matching anchor 2.
  • eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 53-65 and 69-76 Existing transactions switch to the higher floor when weighted calldata is large relative to EVM and creation gas, while computation-heavy transactions remain on the former-cost branch.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 79-83 The draft expressly characterizes the change as a backwards-incompatible gas repricing requiring a network upgrade.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The exact affected set depends on unresolved treatment of gas limits, refunds, access lists, and transaction types.
Security risksUnder-specified2The mechanism touches the limited but critical set of transaction charging, gas-limit enforcement, receipts/block gas totals, and user fee settlement. Divergent or incorrect implementation could affect consensus or charges, which warrants targeted review and fuzzing and matches anchor 2, despite the intended reduction in network load.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 53-65 and 79-83 A consensus gas-used value is changed through a new floor, and the draft calls the repricing backwards incompatible.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 85-87 The draft reports no raised security concern because the maximum possible block size is reduced.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The security section addresses block size but not the consequences of the unspecified charging and failure semantics.
Performance risksUnder-specified2Validating the intended block-level effect requires composed block workloads, not just timing the arithmetic in isolation. The direct change is bounded and load-reducing, but it materially changes worst-case block-size benchmarks, so anchor 2 is appropriate.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Motivation, lines 15-19 and 22-27 The proposal is intended to reduce maximum block size and its variance and to mitigate the gap between average and maximum block size as blob usage grows.
  • eip.md · Rationale, lines 69-76 The draft predicts a reduction of the maximum possible block size to roughly 0.6 MB and says this would create room for a higher gas limit or more blobs.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package supplies predicted sizes but no benchmark methodology, and an actual gas-limit or blob-count increase is outside this proposal's specified change.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified2The proposal modifies EIP-2028-era calldata pricing and requires coordinated consideration of EIP-1559 transaction gas semantics and EIP-4844 blob transactions/block capacity. These are multiple but narrowly scoped accounting interactions, fitting anchor 2 rather than strong, redesign-level interdependence.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 22-27 The rationale expressly relates the change to EIP-1559's block gas limit, EIP-2028's nonzero-calldata cost, and EIP-4844's blob data-availability path.
  • eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 40-65 and 69-76 The calculation incorporates an existing contract-creation initcode word cost without identifying its EIP and is intended to alter calldata/block-size behavior alongside blobs.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Blob transaction and Gas accounting, lines 97-117 and 164-186 EIP-4844 blob transactions carry ordinary transaction data while blob gas is independent, requiring coordinated cases for the two accounting systems.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The draft does not explicitly enumerate applicable transaction types, and it does not identify the EIP that supplied InitCodeWordGas.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-1559, EIP-2028, EIP-4844
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Constructible transactions with access lists, different gas limits, refunds, contract creation, or blob envelopes can produce different answers depending on how the draft's floor is integrated. Agreement is needed before vectors can be baselined, but the missing decisions are localized to transaction gas accounting rather than newly observable prior behavior, matching anchor 2.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 40-65 The draft gives an incomplete pseudocode expression for final transaction gas used but does not define the charging point, gas-limit failure behavior, refund basis, or treatment of other intrinsic charges.
  • supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification, lines 42-50 The linked transaction specification's intrinsic cost includes access-list address and storage-key charges in addition to base and calldata costs, terms absent from EIP-7623's replacement formula.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Blob transaction and Gas accounting, lines 97-117 and 164-186 Blob transactions retain ordinary data and access-list semantics while also paying independent blob gas, leaving their precise treatment by the general EIP-7623 wording unstated.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The intended arithmetic crossover is clear; the material uncertainty is its integration into existing transaction execution and settlement.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified1The introduced floor has one central branch boundary that requires below, equal, and above-threshold cases across its input dimensions. This is a single boundary-prone mechanism and matches anchor 1.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 38-65 The new mechanism selects the maximum of a normal-cost branch and a calldata floor, with weighted zero/nonzero bytes and a contract-creation term affecting the crossover.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If floor enforcement changes out-of-gas or refund sequencing, the boundary matrix could be materially larger than the draft establishes.
Show 20 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-65 The proposal defines a transaction accounting formula and no opcode number or instruction semantics.
Modified opcodes0The rubric excludes gas-only effects from modified-opcode scoring, and the proposal specifies no opcode behavior change. Anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-65 EVM execution gas is only an input to the transaction-level maximum; no existing opcode's result or non-gas behavior is changed.
Added precompiles0No precompile is added, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-65 No precompile address, input, output, or execution rule is introduced.
Modified precompiles0A transaction-level total that can encompass execution of a precompile is not a modification to that precompile's own logic or schedule. Anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-65 The transaction-wide floor does not change the logic or gas schedule of any named precompile.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-65 The gas-floor specification deploys or designates no contract.
Modified system contracts0No direct or package-established indirect system-contract modification is introduced, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-65 The draft changes a general transaction gas formula and names no system contract code, state, or system action.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode execution path or state-access ordering is changed, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 38-65 The only specified change is a transaction-level gas-used formula based on calldata, execution gas, and creation cost; it does not move a state access or an opcode-local gas charge.
Blob gas accounting changes0A motivation involving blobs is not a blob gas-accounting modification. The proposal neither adjusts nor introduces blob gas, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Motivation and Specification, lines 22-27 and 30-65 Blobs motivate the calldata repricing, but the specified calculation contains no blob-gas term and changes only transaction calldata gas.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting, lines 164-186 The linked blob proposal defines blob gas as independent of normal gas; the EIP-7623 formula does not alter that mechanism.
State gas accounting changes0No state gas mechanism described by this anchor is present, so the score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 38-65 The new formula concerns calldata tokens and total transaction gas and defines no charge for writing state, state-byte rate, or block state-gas budget.
New EVM gas refund0A possible effect on ordinary unused-gas settlement is not itself a new EVM gas refund mechanism; anchor 0 is the best-supported score.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-65 The proposal specifies a revised gas-used total but does not introduce a new refund operation or refund counter mechanism.
Uncertainty: The draft does not say how the floor is reconciled with unused gas, an omission assessed under the cross-client under-specification criterion.
New transaction types0No transaction type is introduced, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 30-65 and 79-83 The draft reprices transactions through a general gas formula and defines no type identifier or new transaction envelope.
New block / header fields0No block or header field is added, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-65 The revised transaction gas calculation introduces no block or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No RLP, SSZ, or other interface encoding change is introduced, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-65 The proposal changes a gas-used calculation without changing transaction, block, or interface serialization.
Block syncing changes0No new block RLP validation mechanism requiring sync tests is introduced, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-65 The proposal changes transaction gas accounting and specifies no block RLP field or RLP validation rule.
New fork activation mechanism0Selecting a new rule at an ordinary scheduled fork is not the state or internal- variable modification scored by this anchor. Anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 79-83 The draft requires a scheduled network upgrade but specifies no activation- block state mutation or modification of an existing internal variable.
Engine API changes0No Engine API surface changes are required, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-65 The specification adds only an internal transaction gas calculation and no Engine API directive, field, or endpoint.
Transition-tool interface changes0The rule can be exercised through existing transaction and expected-result data, so no transition-tool interface change is required and anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-65 All inputs to the new calculation are existing transaction or execution properties, and the draft adds no transition-tool input or output field.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0A changed gas-used expectation reworks affected tests; it does not make tests unrelated to this EIP assert a new invariant. Anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 38-65 The floor changes the expected value of existing transaction gas used but introduces no additional output, field, or independently asserted property.
New test-framework primitives0Existing transaction construction and gas expectation primitives suffice; specialized cases and calculation helpers do not amount to a new framework primitive. Anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 32-65 The feature is expressed using ordinary calldata contents, contract-creation status, execution gas, and expected gas used.
Uncertainty: The draft provides no testing section, but nothing in the specified surface establishes a need for a new reusable expectation or modifier abstraction.
Cryptography0No cryptography is introduced or modified, so anchor 0 applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 32-65 The specification consists of integer calldata-token arithmetic and a maximum operation and introduces no cryptographic method.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@fd4ec86e3b EIPS/eip-7623.md committed 2024-04-03 · information cutoff 2024-04-11
Current master · File history · blob cdce5e7966 · sha256 ba2bb398013d
Rubric
Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator
gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/05-retrospective-complexity-assignment/outputs/fork-eips/prague/eip-7623.yaml · sha256 64416c928a68
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-1559.md, supporting/eip-4844.md
Compare EIP-7623 with other assessmentsAll Prague / Pectra assessments
Criterion legend and glossary

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

EVM surface

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

  • Added opcodes
    Introduces new opcodes
    Score anchors
    0
    No new opcodes are introduced.
    1
    A new simple opcode is introduced (no data portion, no complex stack mechanics, and a constant gas cost).
    2
    Multiple new simple opcodes are introduced, or a single new complex opcode is introduced (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
    3
    Multiple new opcodes are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
    • Cryptography opcodes are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" section for a separate assessment.
  • Modified opcodes
    Modifies pre-existing opcodes
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing opcode modifications are introduced.
    3
    At least one pre-existing opcode's behavior is modified (not including gas changes) or a pre-existing opcode is deprecated.
  • Added precompiles
    Introduces new precompiles
    Score anchors
    0
    No new precompiles are introduced.
    1
    A new simple precompile is introduced (constant input length, constant gas cost).
    2
    Multiple new simple precompiles are introduced, or a single new complex precompile is introduced (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
    3
    Multiple new precompiles are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
    • Cryptography precompiles are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" for a separate assessment.
  • Modified precompiles
    Modifies pre-existing precompiles logic or gas-accounting
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing precompiles are modified.
    1
    At least one pre-existing precompile has its gas schedule modified.
    2
    Multiple pre-existing precompiles have their gas schedule modified, or a single pre-existing precompile has its behavior modified.
    3
    The behavior of multiple pre-existing precompiles, or a single complex pre-existing precompile modified.
  • Added system contracts
    Introduces new system contract, stateful or not
    Score anchors
    0
    No new system contracts are introduced.
    1
    A new system contract is introduced that is not stateful nor does it trigger a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
    2
    Multiple new system contracts are introduced or a single new system contract that is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
    3
    Multiple new system contracts are introduced and at least one of them is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
  • Modified system contracts
    Modifies pre-existing system contracts
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to pre-existing system contracts are introduced, directly or indirectly.
    1
    Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has minor indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
    2
    Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has major indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
    3
    At least one pre-existing system contract code or state is modified, which would involve irregular state transition or a similarly complex transition methodology.

Gas and accounting

Execution, blob, and state gas rules, refunds, and where charges happen inside opcodes.

  • EVM Gas rule changes
    New EVM gas accounting rules
    Score anchors
    0
    No gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State-access ordering within opcode execution · Checklist revision 2 only
    Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
    Score anchors
    0
    No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
    1
    A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
    2
    Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
    3
    The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
    • Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
    • Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
    • Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
  • Blob gas accounting changes
    New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No blob gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State gas accounting changes · Checklist revision 2 only
    New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
    Score anchors
    0
    No state gas accounting changes.
    1
    An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
    2
    A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
    3
    A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
    • Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
  • New EVM gas refund
    New gas-refund mechanism
    Score anchors
    0
    No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    2
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    3
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.

  • New transaction types
    Introduces a new transaction type
    Score anchors
    0
    No new transaction types are introduced.
    3
    A new transaction type is introduced.
  • New or modified transaction validity mechanisms
    Creates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
    Score anchors
    0
    No changes are introduced to the validity rules of existing transaction types or to their intrinsic gas cost calculation.
    1
    Minor adjustments are introduced to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation, but they do not significantly affect existing tests.
    2
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation affect existing tests, but require only limited updates to test cases and no redesign of the testing infrastructure.
    3
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation require extensive rework or redesign of the tests or testing infrastructure.
  • New block / header fields
    Introduces new block or block header fields
    Score anchors
    0
    No new block or header fields are introduced.
    3
    A new block or header field is introduced.
  • Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
    Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
    Score anchors
    0
    No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
    3
    An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
    • "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
  • Block syncing changes
    Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    1
    A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
    3
    Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
  • New fork activation mechanism
    Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
    Score anchors
    0
    No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
    3
    Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
    • Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

  • Engine API changes
    Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
    Score anchors
    0
    No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
    1
    A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
    2
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
    3
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
  • Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
    Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
  • Transition-tool interface changes
    Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
    1
    A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    2
    Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    3
    Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    • Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.

  • Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
    Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
    1
    Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
    2
    Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
    3
    Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
  • New invariant on pre-existing tests · Checklist revision 2 only
    Tests that are **not about this EIP** must nonetheless assert something this EIP produces. Their logic does not change; they gain a new thing to check.
    Score anchors
    0
    Pre-existing tests assert nothing new.
    1
    A narrow, contrived category of pre-existing tests gains a new assertion.
    2
    A broad category gains a new assertion, applied mechanically.
    3
    Every test in the fork gains the assertion regardless of what it tests, and pre-fork vectors must be re-derived to satisfy it.
    • Paired with the row above, and easy to confuse with it. "Patterns affecting pre-existing tests" asks whether existing tests must be **reworked**; this row asks whether they must **additionally assert something new**. Score both — an EIP can be low on one and high on the other.
  • New test-framework primitives · Checklist revision 2 only
    Requires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
    Score anchors
    0
    Existing test primitives suffice.
    1
    Existing primitives need minor extension.
    2
    New expectation or modifier primitives are required, reusable within this EIP's own test suite.
    3
    New framework-level primitives are required that become a permanent part of the framework and are used by other EIPs' tests.

Risk and validation

Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.

  • Security risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that could pose a security risk.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms are self-contained, can be validated in isolation, and do not alter existing invariants that could pose a security risk for any stakeholders.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms interact with a limited number of existing components, slightly altering their security assumptions and requiring a targeted security review or fuzzing.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms interact with multiple existing components, including critical ones, substantially altering their security assumptions and requiring an extensive security review and fuzzing.
  • Performance risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that require performance validation.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms can be benchmarked in isolation and do not affect existing performance behavior.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, but they only have a limited impact on the existing performance benchmarks.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be benchmarked in isolation and have a substantial impact on existing performance benchmarks or have complex interactions with existing mechanisms.
  • Edge/boundary conditions
    Feature contains edge/boundary conditions.
    Score anchors
    0
    No discernible edge cases or boundary conditions are introduced.
    1
    A single edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced, but none of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
    3
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
  • Cryptography
    Introduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
    Score anchors
    0
    No cryptography mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new cryptography mechanism is introduced but it is a well known mechanism that is known to have vast resources to aid on its testing.
    2
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced that are well-known or a single but novel mechanism is introduced that is either untested or has limited resources.
    3
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is a novel mechanism.

Coordination

Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.

  • Cross-EIP interactions
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
    Score anchors
    0
    Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
    1
    The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
    2
    The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
    3
    The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
    • +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
    • This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
  • Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · Checklist revision 2 only
    The EIP text does not determine the answer for cases a test can construct. Clients must agree on a previously unspecified detail before tests can be baselined. The cost here is coordination and re-baselining, not test writing.
    Score anchors
    0
    The EIP text determines the answer for every case a test could construct.
    1
    A few details are unspecified but have an obvious intended reading.
    2
    Details require client agreement before tests can be written, but they are localized.
    3
    A previously unspecified *and previously unobservable* behavior becomes consensus-critical; expect tests to be re-baselined on each round of EIP amendment.
    • Score this from the EIP's state at assessment time: whether it has client implementations, whether it has been through a devnet, and how many open questions remain on its discussion thread.