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 14
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 this revision, EIP-7623 changes how a transaction's gas used is calculated. It counts calldata "tokens" as zero bytes plus 4 × nonzero bytes. A transaction is then charged the larger of two amounts: the standard cost (4 gas per token, plus EVM gas used, plus any contract-creation cost) or a floor of 12 gas per token. In both cases the 21000 base cost is added. The goal is to make data-heavy transactions with little execution pay up to 48 gas per nonzero byte, which cuts the maximum block size. It adds no new transaction types, header fields, opcodes, precompiles or Engine API changes.

14MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
11–18 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2024-04-11 · EIP revision fd4ec86e3b (2024-04-03)
Score bands · Checklist revision 3
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. EVM Gas rule changes3
  2. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
  3. Cross-EIP interactions2
  4. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2

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 revision gives only a gas-used formula. It does not say whether a gas_limit below the floor is invalid or capped, how refunds are ordered relative to the floor, whether access-list gas is included, or which transaction types are covered.

Plausible total

11–18
recorded score 14 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • Must a transaction's gas_limit be at least 21000 + floor? If not, what happens when the floor exceeds gas_limit?
  • Is evm_gas_used in the max() measured before or after the refund counter is applied?
  • Do access-list intrinsic costs count toward the standard side, the floor, or neither?
  • Does the floor apply to all transaction types, including blob and contract-creation transactions?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The formula leaves out the access-list intrinsic gas that is present in the baseline intrinsic cost.
  • The pseudo-code has an unbalanced brace, and 'tx.gasused' vs 'tx.gasUsed' is spelled inconsistently.
  • The Rationale's '48 gas' per nonzero byte equals 12 × 4 tokens, but the threshold of 'gas spent on EVM operations' is only implied by the max().

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7623 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified3The proposal adds a new settlement rule: a floor applied with max() after execution. It also changes the expected gas used for existing calldata-heavy, low-execution transactions. That meets level 3: a new mechanism that also changes the gas results of baseline operations.
  • eip.md · Specification — "The formula for determining the gas used per transaction changes to" Gas used becomes 21000 + max(standard calldata + evm_gas_used + creation cost, TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN * tokens_in_calldata).
  • eip.md · Rationale — "increase the cost of calldata to 48 gas for transactions that do not exceed a certain threshold" Transactions with little execution relative to calldata get a different gas result than before.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: One could read this as a reprice of an existing rule (level 1). However, the max-with-floor settlement is structurally new. Its interaction with refunds and access-list costs is not specified.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified2Baseline tests that send nonzero calldata with little execution need new expected gas, balances, receipt cumulative gas and block gas_used. These cases appear in several families: intrinsic-gas/calldata, value transfers with data, and precompile calls direct from a transaction with large inputs. But they are localized cases rather than a common rewrite of ordinary cases.
  • eip.md · Specification — max(... , TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN * tokens_in_calldata) Any transaction where evm_gas_used is below 8 × tokens (e.g., data sent to EOAs or cheap contracts) has a different gas used.
  • supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification — "gas_refund = transaction.gas_limit - gas_used" Gas used feeds sender refunds, coinbase priority fees and cumulative block gas, so expected balances and block values change too.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: How broad the impact is depends on how often baseline vectors use calldata-heavy, low-execution transactions. Without a supplied suite, this cannot be measured.
Cross-EIP interactions2EIP-1559 fee settlement needs coordinated cases: refunds, priority-fee payment and base-fee evolution when the floor applies. EIP-2028 and EIP-4844 need only local compatibility checks.
  • supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification — validate_block fee settlement Gas used drives the sender refund (gas_limit - gas_used), the priority fee to the coinbase, and block gas_used, which feeds the base-fee update.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "cost for nonzero calldata bytes hasn't been adjusted since EIP-2028" The standard token cost reproduces the EIP-2028 pricing of 16 gas per nonzero byte and 4 per zero byte.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Blob transaction — "data ... follow the same semantics as EIP-1559" Blob transactions carry calldata, so the floor presumably applies to them alongside the separate blob fee.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The interactions with EIP-2930 access lists and EIP-3860 initcode costs are unclear from the formula.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-1559, EIP-2028, EIP-4844
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2Several localized outcomes are open to competing interpretations, each of which can be constructed and observed in gas used. Examples: refund ordering relative to the floor; a gas_limit below the floor (invalid vs capped); whether access-list gas counts toward the standard side. Clients and the spec must agree before expected values can be fixed.
  • eip.md · Specification — tx.gasUsed formula The formula leaves out access-list intrinsic costs. It does not say whether evm_gas_used is before or after refunds, or what happens when the floor exceeds gas_limit.
  • eip.md · Specification — "isContractCreation * (32000 + InitCodeWordGas * words(calldata))" Creation cost sits inside the max(), but the transaction types the floor applies to are not stated.
Confidence: Medium
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified1Best-supported reading: the change affects gas-used accounting, which feeds block gas-limit inclusion. No new validation rule is stated. An implied gas_limit ≥ floor bound would be a local bound change. So the score is level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification — tx.gasUsed formula Defines gas used but never says whether gas_limit must cover the floor, or whether intrinsic-gas validation changes.
  • supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification — "signer.balance -= transaction.gas_limit * effective_gas_price" Upfront charging and block gas-limit checks depend on gas_limit and gas_used. The floor could push gas used above gas_limit.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: If an intrinsic-gas floor validity rule is intended, this rises to 2. If nothing about eligibility changes, it falls to 0.
New test-framework primitives1The framework's existing intrinsic-gas / expected-gas-used helper needs a local extension to compute the floor and the max. No new abstraction is needed.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Let tokens_in_calldata = ..." Test expectations need a token count and a floor gas calculation.
Confidence: Medium
Security risksUnder-specified1There is one local invariant to check: gas used never exceeds gas_limit or the prepaid balance under the floor. It can be checked locally within transaction processing.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "no security concerns were raised" The EIP claims no security concerns.
  • supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification — "assert signer.balance >= 0" If the floor raises gas used above the prepaid gas_limit, sender-balance and fee-settlement invariants could break.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Depends on how the unspecified gas_limit-vs-floor rule is resolved.
Performance risks1The resource bound (maximum calldata per block) shrinks. Re-benchmarking the worst-case calldata block at component level is enough, and baseline end-to-end assumptions do not become stricter.
  • eip.md · Rationale — "lower the maximum possible block size to roughly 0.6 MB" Changes the worst-case block-size bound.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "maximum possible block size is reduced" The load bound decreases.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: Arguably 0, because the change only reduces load.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified1There is one boundary-sensitive mechanism: the floor-vs-standard threshold. Its dimensions are zero/nonzero byte mix, execution gas and creation. A second boundary (gas_limit vs floor) may exist but is not specified.
  • eip.md · Specification — max(...) The outcome flips at the point where standard + execution + creation cost equals 12 × tokens.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If gas_limit must cover the floor, that would be a second boundary rule (level 2).
Show 19 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No new instructions.
Modified opcodes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction semantics change.
Added precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No new precompiles.
Modified precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification Precompile gas and behavior are unchanged.
Added system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts.
Modified system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are affected.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification The changes are limited to transaction-level gas-used settlement. No instruction's ordering is touched.
Blob gas accounting changes0Blob-gas pricing and limits are unchanged.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "make room for adding more blobs" Blob parameters are mentioned only as a motivation. Blob-gas rules are not changed.
State gas accounting changes0No state gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-write accounting is introduced or changed.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism. How the floor interacts with existing refunds is left unspecified (see UNSP), but that does not add a refund.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is introduced. Refunds are not mentioned.
Uncertainty: It is unclear whether evm_gas_used is measured before or after refunds.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No new transaction envelope.
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header fields.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No serialization changes.
Block syncing changes0Block gas_used changes only through execution rules, which this criterion excludes.
  • eip.md · Specification No change to block RLP decoding or structural validation.
New fork activation mechanism0No activation-specific state transition is required.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "requires a scheduled network upgrade" This is only rule selection at the fork. No state migration.
Engine API changes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API changes are specified.
Transition-tool interface changes0The existing gasUsed outputs carry the changed values. The interface does not change.
  • eip.md · Specification Gas-used computation changes internally. No new input or output fields are needed.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Only existing values change. No new output needs an assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification No new log, header, receipt field or commitment is introduced.
Cryptography0No cryptographic changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No cryptographic rule is involved.
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 3 · ethspecs/pm@fe2f793b03
Evaluator
Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5) at high effort, one tool-less call per EIP · isolation bubblewrap_claude_p_no_tools_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/10-opus-v3-reassessment/retrospective/outputs/assessments/prague/eip-7623.yaml · sha256 d55b95f5693a
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
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 · 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.