EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7691: Blob throughput increase

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 2024-12-18Added after cutoffLayers: execution, consensus

LLM Completescore 16

Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: 2026-08-25 · Spec revision: 2024-12-18 · 1da6c75495

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-7691 raised the consensus-layer blob target and maximum from the EIP-4844 values to 6 and 9 blobs per block and raised the corresponding execution-layer blob-gas target and maximum. It also selected a new blob-base-fee update fraction to account for the asymmetric distance from the new target to empty and full blocks. All replacements were specified to activate with the Electra/Prague fork, without adding a transaction format, header field, opcode, precompile, or cryptographic mechanism.

16MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range: 15–17 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff: 2024-12-18 · EIP revision 1da6c75495 (2024-12-18)

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.

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

The EIP text available at the assessment cutoff left material behavior unresolved. The affected criteria and the plausible total range record that uncertainty.

Why: The normative values and intended fork split are clear, but the execution-layer activation phrase combines an epoch identifier with timestamp semantics and the new maximum/target constants reuse the old names. These are localized rather than design-wide gaps, and the evident intended behavior is to select all new values together at the Prague/Electra boundary.

Plausible total

15–17
recorded score 16 · plausible tiers Medium

Affected criteria (3)

Blob gas accounting changes (1)
New fork activation mechanism (3)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (1)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (2)

What exact execution-layer fork signal is intended by "starting at PECTRA_FORK_EPOCH timestamp," and how is it aligned with the consensus-layer epoch boundary?
Are MAX_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK and TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK intended to be explicitly fork-scoped constants despite retaining their pre-fork names?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The execution-layer activation wording combines PECTRA_FORK_EPOCH with timestamp semantics, while the compatibility section refers to the Prague fork.
The replacement execution maximum and target reuse their old constant names even though the prose says the old values are replaced at activation.
A local-builder maximum-blob flag is mentioned only as an approach that could be considered and is not part of the normative specification.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7691 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
New fork activation mechanismUnder-specified	3	Existing internal protocol parameters are modified specifically at the activation boundary, which directly matches the rubric's score-3 binary anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 40-42 At the Pectra fork boundary, consensus clients replace the old blob count values and execution clients replace the old maximum, target, and update fraction. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 66-70 Cancun/Deneb retain the prior values, while Prague/Electra activate the replacement parameter set. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The text mixes an epoch-named activation variable with timestamp wording for the execution layer and is inconsistent in suffixing the replacement execution constants.
Performance risks	3	The higher sustained and peak blob load cannot be validated solely in an isolated component and substantially affects existing networking, propagation, availability, sync, and validation benchmarks, matching score 3.	eip.md · Motivation, lines 19-25 The prior limits were chosen cautiously because mainnet peer-to-peer behavior is hard to predict, and the increase is conditioned on big-block/blob tests, monitoring, bandwidth savings, and concern for solo stakers. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification / Consensus layer validation, lines 228-243 Every consensus node participates in blob availability, sidecar propagation and sync, while validators produce and publish the data affected by the higher limit. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The proposal gives chosen limits and qualitative test needs but no packaged benchmark results.
Security risks	2	Raising an existing data-availability limit alters networking and validator resource assumptions and warrants targeted cross-layer security validation, but it does not introduce a new cryptographic or broadly invasive mechanism; score 2 is the best fit.	eip.md · Security Considerations / Network Impacts, lines 72-80 The proposal requires mainnet and testnet big-block/blob tests to establish that the higher limit does not harm network health and calls for extra monitoring around activation. eip.md · Motivation, lines 19-25 Unpredictable peer-to-peer behavior, reorganization rate, bandwidth, and solo-staker impact are explicit considerations in selecting the increase. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The EIP characterizes the change as contained, while the package supplies no quantitative boundary at which network degradation becomes security-critical.
Edge/boundary conditions	2	Tests must cover multiple related boundaries: pre/post-fork selection, the 9-blob maximum, target crossings, empty/full blocks, and excess-blob-gas flooring; none requires an exceptional test-case explosion, so score 2 applies.	eip.md · Rationale / Update Fraction, lines 52-64 The new 2:3 target-to-maximum ratio makes empty and full blocks affect the base fee asymmetrically, and the selected fraction is a compromise between the two response boundaries. eip.md · Security Considerations / Stability Around Fork Epoch, lines 78-80 The proposal explicitly identifies the limit change at the fork transition as a point requiring increased monitoring. Confidence: High
Cross-EIP interactions	2	EIP-7691 directly modifies EIP-4844 and requires coordinated consideration with the explicitly identified calldata-headroom and PeerDAS proposals, but the interactions are limited and do not demand extensive redesign; score 2 applies.	eip.md · Motivation, lines 23-25 EIP-7623 is identified as creating block-size headroom for the blob increase, while EIP-7594 is the longer-term PeerDAS path that this short-term increase precedes. eip.md · Rationale / Update Fraction, lines 52-64 The proposal changes target/maximum assumptions and fee responsiveness inherited from EIP-4844. supporting/eip-7594.md · Metadata and Specification, lines 1-12 and 24-32 EIP-7594 explicitly requires EIP-4844 and extends its blobs into a different data-availability design, grounding the limited successor interaction described by EIP-7691. Confidence: High Uncertainty: EIP-7594 is described as a future successor rather than a co-activated dependency, so its interaction is weaker than the EIP-4844 and EIP-7623 relationships. Interacting EIPs: EIP-4844, EIP-7594, EIP-7623
Blob gas accounting changesUnder-specified	1	This is a direct update to an existing blob-gas accounting mechanism, matching score 1 rather than introducing a new mechanism.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 32-42 The execution layer replaces the existing blob-gas maximum, target, and base-fee update fraction at the fork. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification / Gas accounting, lines 164-184 EIP-4844 defines the pre-existing independent blob-gas accounting and base-fee mechanism whose constants EIP-7691 updates. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The new execution constants are not consistently given fork-specific names, but their replacement role is explicit.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	1	Existing validation formulas remain intact, but their fork-selected thresholds and fee outcome change; this is a minor adjustment matching score 1.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 32-42 The execution-layer blob-gas target, maximum, and base-fee update fraction used by existing blob validation become fork-dependent. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification / Execution layer validation, lines 260-287 Existing blob transactions are checked against the computed blob base fee, while aggregate blob gas is checked against the maximum that EIP-7691 raises. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The maximum is formally a block-level aggregate check rather than per-transaction validity, while the fee threshold affects blob-transaction acceptance indirectly through the changed base-fee computation.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	A minor, focused subset of pre-existing EIP-4844 validation and fee tests must be made fork-aware or re-baselined, matching score 1.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 32-42 Existing maximum, target, and update-fraction values become fork-dependent and are replaced by new values. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification / Execution layer validation, lines 244-287 Existing blob tests cover excess-blob-gas calculation, blob fee validity, total blob gas against the maximum, and the header total, all of which use the changed parameters. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The package does not enumerate the historical test inventory, so the affected subset size is inferred from the specified validation paths.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	1	These are a few localized specification ambiguities with an obvious intended reading—synchronized fork-scoped replacement of the listed constants—so score 1 applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 32-42 The intended replacement values are explicit, but the execution activation is described as starting at a PECTRA_FORK_EPOCH timestamp and two replacement execution constants reuse their old unsuffixed names. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 66-70 The compatibility text clarifies the intended fork split, although it again uses the same MAX_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK and TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK names on both sides of the fork. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Exact execution-layer activation terminology and constant naming should be normalized before cross-client vectors are baselined.

Show 19 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is added.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 The normative change consists only of five blob-related constants and adds no EVM instruction.
Modified opcodes	No opcode result or non-gas behavior is modified.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 No pre-existing opcode behavior is mentioned or changed by the parameter replacements.
Added precompiles	No precompile is added.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 The specification contains no new precompile address or execution logic.
Modified precompiles	Increased blob capacity does not itself modify the existing point-evaluation precompile.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 Neither precompile logic nor a precompile gas schedule is among the changed constants. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification / Point evaluation precompile, lines 195-226 The linked EIP's existing point-evaluation precompile has fixed logic and gas cost that EIP-7691 does not alter.
Added system contracts	No system contract is added.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 Only protocol constants are defined; no address, bytecode, state, or system action for a new contract appears.
Modified system contracts	No direct or specified indirect system-contract modification is introduced.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 The blob parameter replacements neither name nor alter any pre-existing system contract code, state, or behavior.
EVM Gas rule changes	The proposal changes the separate blob-gas mechanism, not an EVM gas accounting rule, so the zero anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 28-42 The complete change set consists of blob-count, blob-gas, and blob-base-fee parameters; it does not change normal EVM execution-gas accounting.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No opcode's state-access position or gas-charge ordering is changed.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 28-42 The specification only replaces cross-layer blob parameters and defines no opcode execution or state-access sequence.
State gas accounting changes	No state gas accounting rule is introduced or adjusted.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 28-42 The parameter changes concern blobs and their fee market, with no state-write gas cost, state-gas budget, or reservoir change.
New EVM gas refund	No gas-refund mechanism is introduced.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 28-42 The specification contains only blob capacity and base-fee parameters and defines no refund behavior.
New transaction types	No new transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 The proposal changes parameters for existing blobs and defines no transaction envelope or transaction type identifier. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification / Blob transaction, lines 97-117 The blob transaction type is pre-existing EIP-4844 functionality and its format is not changed by EIP-7691.
New block / header fields	Existing fields carry the results of the updated accounting, so no new-field anchor is triggered.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 The proposal does not add a block or header field. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification / Header extension, lines 119-162 The blob_gas_used and excess_blob_gas fields are existing EIP-4844 fields whose values continue to be governed by the same header structure.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	The same encodings continue to be used, so the binary encoding-change anchor is zero.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 28-42 No transaction, block, header, or interface encoding changes are specified; only bounds and a fee parameter change. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification / Header extension, lines 119-162 The blob-related header fields and their RLP positions already exist under EIP-4844 and are not extended by EIP-7691.
Block syncing changes	A fork-dependent block-validity threshold alone is not the rubric's block-RLP syncing change.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 28-42 The proposal changes accepted blob totals through constants but does not alter block or header RLP structure or introduce an RLP validation mechanism. Uncertainty: Sync tests may include larger valid blocks, but no new RLP validation rule is specified.
Engine API changes	Existing payload structures carry the same information at higher permitted blob counts, so no Engine API anchor is triggered.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 The complete normative specification introduces no Engine API field, directive, endpoint, or communication mechanism.
Transition-tool interface changes	Existing fork selection must choose different constants, but the text requires no transition-tool interface modification.	eip.md · Specification, lines 28-42 No transition-tool input or output field, endpoint, or new communication mechanism is specified; only fork-selected protocol constants change. Uncertainty: The proposal does not discuss transition-tool configuration, so this score assumes existing fork-selection inputs suffice.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Affected blob tests change their parameterized expectations; pre-existing tests do not gain a separate new invariant.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 28-42 The proposal replaces values used by existing blob rules and does not require unrelated tests to assert a newly produced property.
New test-framework primitives	Parameterized boundary and fee tests can use existing primitives.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 32-42 The feature is expressed as replacement numeric parameters applied at an existing fork boundary, with no novel expectation type or testing abstraction described. Uncertainty: Test-framework details are not included in the package, but the specified behavior does not imply a new primitive.
Cryptography	More blobs can increase the amount of existing cryptographic work, which is a performance issue, but no cryptographic functionality changes under this anchor.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters, lines 32-42 EIP-7691 changes blob quantity and fee constants but specifies no cryptographic algorithm, proof rule, commitment format, or verification behavior. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification / Cryptographic Helpers, lines 67-74 KZG verification is part of the already-existing EIP-4844 blob mechanism rather than a mechanism introduced or modified by EIP-7691.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@1da6c75495 EIPS/eip-7691.md committed 2024-12-18 · information cutoff 2024-12-18T19:48:12Z
Current master · File history · blob 61b85e933b · sha256 bc0b382748c6
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-7691.yaml · sha256 5b2628e57d07
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-4844.md, supporting/eip-7594.md, supporting/eip-7623.md

Compare EIP-7691 with other assessments All 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.

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

Gas and accounting

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

EVM Gas rule changes
New EVM gas accounting rules
Score anchors
0
No gas accounting changes.
1
Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated.
2
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
3
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
ORD
State-access ordering within opcode execution · 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.
SGAS
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.
ENC
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
Score anchors
0
No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
3
An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
- "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
Block syncing changes
Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
Score anchors
0
No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
1
A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
2
Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
3
Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
ACT
New fork activation mechanism
Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
Score anchors
0
No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
3
Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
- Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

Engine API changes
Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
Score anchors
0
No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
1
A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
2
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
3
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
T8N
Transition-tool interface changes
Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
Score anchors
0
No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
1
A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
2
Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
3
Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
- Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

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

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
1
Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
2
Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
3
Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
INV
New invariant on pre-existing tests · 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.

XEIP
Cross-EIP interactions
Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
Score anchors
0
Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
1
The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
2
The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
3
The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
- +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
- This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
UNSP
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · 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.