Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7685: General purpose execution layer requests

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 2024-04-25Included by cutoffLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 21
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2024-04-18 · e2a66831fc

Scope at the cutoff. At this revision, EIP-7685 sets up a general framework for execution-layer requests that are passed to the consensus layer. A request is a request_type byte followed by opaque request_data. The block body gains a list of requests, sorted in ascending order by type. The execution header gains a 32-byte requests_root, which is the Merkle-Patricia trie root of that list keyed by index, built the same way as the transactions root. The revision defines no request types, system contracts, sources or validation rules for requests. It also leaves the consensus-layer and Engine API representation to later proposals.

21MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
18–25 (Medium–High)
Assessment cutoff
2024-04-25 · EIP revision e2a66831fc (2024-04-18)
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. New block / header fields3
  2. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  3. Block syncing changes3
  4. Transition-tool interface changes2

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: This revision defines only the container (typed request list, body field and header root). It does not define any request type or any rule on where requests come from or how the EL validates them. It does not say where requests_root sits in the header, and it does not specify Engine API or payload transport. The Test Cases section is TODO and Security Considerations reads 'Needs discussion.'

Plausible total

18–25
recorded score 21 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (6)
  • Is a block whose body contains requests valid when no request type is defined, and how must unknown request types be treated?
  • Must the EL derive the requests itself and compare them with the body, or only check the body against requests_root?
  • Where in the header RLP field order does requests_root sit?
  • How are requests carried in the Engine API execution payload, if at all, under this EIP?
  • Is a request with empty request_data (type byte only) valid?
  • Is explicit validation of ascending type order required, or only the root match?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The abstract says requests are 'inherently' exposed to the CL, yet the CL and Engine API representation is left to future proposals.
  • The rationale says the type ordering makes it easier to verify that all committed requests were found in the block, but the specification never states that verification rule.
  • Intra-type ordering is delegated to future request types, so for now no ordering inside a type can be tested.
  • The 'Opaque byte array' rationale mentions 'the transaction payload', apparently meaning the request payload.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7685 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
New block / header fields3The execution header gains requests_root, and the block body gains a requests list.
  • eip.md · Block Header - "Extend the header with a new 32 byte value requests_root" New execution-header field.
  • eip.md · Block structure New block body member: the requests list.
Confidence: High
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3The block body and header schemas both gain serialized fields, and a new typed request encoding is introduced.
  • eip.md · Block structure - "block_body_rlp = rlp([... , [request_0, ..., request_k]])" The block body RLP schema gains a requests list.
  • eip.md · Block Header The header RLP gains a 32-byte requests_root.
  • eip.md · Request - "request = request_type ++ request_data" A new typed request encoding is defined.
Confidence: High
Block syncing changesUnder-specified3Several structural rules change through block import: header decoding with the new field, body decoding with the requests list, and the requests_root-vs-body match, which is a cross-field (complex) check. Ascending-type ordering adds another rule. Level 3.
  • eip.md · Block structure New body RLP decoding with an appended requests list.
  • eip.md · Block Header New header field. requests_root must equal the trie root of body.requests.
  • eip.md · Ordering - "simplify the process of verifying that all requests which were committed to in requests_root were found in the block" The commitment ties the header to the body and implies an ordering check.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Whether ordering is checked explicitly or only enforced through the root comparison is not stated. Either way, multiple rules are added and one is complex.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified2The t8n tool needs to output requests_root and the requests list. Block-building tooling needs a requests body input. That is multiple field changes with no new exchange mechanism.
  • eip.md · Block Header requests_root must be computed and reported.
  • eip.md · Block structure The body carries a requests list that a block builder must receive or output.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: This revision defines no request types and no source for requests. Only the root output might be needed, which would be level 1.
New invariant on pre-existing tests2Every block-producing test in the target fork must additionally produce or check the new requests_root field and the empty requests body list. This is a universal assertion. Pre-fork vectors do not need to be re-derived, so the level is 2.
  • eip.md · Block Header - "block.header.requests_root = compute_trie_root_from_indexed_data(block.body.requests)" Every post-fork block has a requests_root commitment, which is the empty-trie root when there are no requests.
Confidence: High
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2Clients could disagree on several observable outcomes. One is whether a block whose body carries requests of an undefined type, or any requests at all, is valid. Another is where requests_root sits in the header encoding. These competing outcomes are localized but must be agreed before fixtures can be fixed.
  • eip.md · Request source and validity - "This EIP makes no strict requirement where a request may come from nor when/how a request must be validated" No rule says how the EL must treat requests in a block, including unknown types or non-empty lists when no types exist.
  • eip.md · Block Header The header field's position in the header RLP is not stated.
  • eip.md · Intra-type - "Within the same type, order is not defined" Intra-type ordering is left open.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Request-type EIPs that are not supplied may resolve validity per type. The header position may be assumed to be appended last.
Engine API changesUnder-specified1For the CL to receive the requests and for the EL to rebuild the extended body, the execution payload exchanged over the Engine API presumably needs a requests field. This revision does not specify it, so the score is the minimal plausible single-field change, given low confidence.
  • eip.md · Abstract - "This inherently exposes the requests to the consensus layer" The requests are intended to reach the CL.
  • eip.md · Consensus Layer - "Each proposal may choose how to extend the beacon chain types" The CL and Engine API representation is not specified.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: The Engine API change is unspecified. It could be none in this EIP (left to request-type EIPs), or it could be several fields or a new versioned method.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1Ordinary execution tests do not change behavior. Only baseline block-structure and RLP-decoding cases, such as malformed header or body field counts, must account for the extra fields. This rework is confined to boundary cases within the block-structure family. The new header value that every block must carry is scored under INV.
  • eip.md · Block structure - "The block body is appended with a list of requests" The block body RLP structure gains an additional list.
  • eip.md · Block Header - "Extend the header with a new 32 byte value requests_root" The header structure gains a field.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Whether changed block hashes in every fixture count as rework or as a new assertion is a judgment call. Here it is treated as the new invariant under INV.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified1Existing header and body primitives need local extensions: a new header field, a typed-bytes request list in the body, and an indexed-trie root computed like the transactions root. No new abstraction is required.
  • eip.md · Request - "request = request_type ++ request_data" A typed opaque request object must be representable in the block body.
  • eip.md · Block Header A new header field is computed with the existing indexed-trie method.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Invalid-block tests that tamper with the request list or its ordering could justify a new body modifier abstraction (level 2).
Security risks1The new security condition is the integrity of the header commitment against the body's request list: blocks with a mismatched or misordered list must be rejected. This can be checked locally at block validation.
  • eip.md · Ordering The ordering exists to verify integrity between the body requests and requests_root.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations - "Needs discussion." No security analysis is provided.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The security section is empty, and request authority and validation are deferred to the CL and to future types.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified1One boundary-sensitive mechanism is introduced: ascending type ordering of the requests list against its root commitment. Cases include empty, single, equal-type and out-of-order lists.
  • eip.md · Request - "in ascending order by type" Requests must be ordered by type, which raises boundary cases such as equal types, out-of-order types and an empty list.
  • eip.md · Ordering The type ordering exists to verify the integrity of the commitment.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If an empty request_data or an unknown type byte is handled as a separate rule, this could be level 2.
Cross-EIP interactions1Only local compatibility checks are needed: the requests body field must be placed after the existing body fields (withdrawals), and the header field after the Cancun header fields. No coordinated cross-EIP scenarios are established, because no request types are defined. The candidate list is empty.
  • eip.md · Block structure - "Latest block body field before requests" The body field is placed after the latest existing body field.
  • eip.md · Request source and validity Request producers such as system contracts are deferred to other proposals.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Future request-type EIPs built on this framework would add coordinated interactions. They are not supplied and not counted.
Show 16 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new instruction.
  • eip.md · Specification No opcodes are defined.
Modified opcodes0No instruction's semantics or availability changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No changes to instruction semantics.
Added precompiles0No new precompile.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles are defined.
Modified precompiles0No precompile changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile changes.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Request source and validity - "The authors' recommendations" System contracts are only recommended for future request types. None is specified.
Modified system contracts0No existing system contract changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No existing system contract is referenced or changed.
EVM Gas rule changes0No rule for charging, metering or settling execution gas is added or changed.
  • eip.md · Specification / Execution Layer Only the block body and header structures change. No gas charging, metering or settlement rule is specified.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction or state-access behavior is specified.
Blob gas accounting changes0No change to blob-gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Specification Blob gas is not mentioned.
State gas accounting changes0No change to state-gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-gas accounting is defined.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is defined.
New transaction types0Request types are not transaction types, and no transaction envelope is introduced.
  • eip.md · Request Requests are typed objects in the body, not transaction envelopes.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Transaction validity is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction validity or intrinsic gas rules are specified.
New fork activation mechanism0Only rule selection at the fork. No one-time state transition.
  • eip.md · Specification No state migration or code installation at activation.
Performance risks0No request types or sources are defined, so the workload is an indexed trie root over a list that is usually empty. No additional performance validation is established.
  • eip.md · Block Header A trie root is computed over the request list, the same way as for transactions.
Uncertainty: Future request types could add workload, but that belongs to those EIPs.
Cryptography0The unchanged trie-root primitive is reused. No new cryptographic rule is added.
  • eip.md · Block Header - "This is equivalent to how the transaction trie root is computed." The existing MPT/keccak commitment method is reused.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@e2a66831fc EIPS/eip-7685.md committed 2024-04-18 · information cutoff 2024-04-25
Current master · File history · blob 428e190258 · sha256 83e2e6c4341a
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-7685.yaml · sha256 5512e651a6af
Compare EIP-7685 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.