EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7708: ETH transfers emit a log

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

RetrospectiveAmsterdam / GlamsterdamAssessment cutoff 2025-10-22Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 17

Human Completescore 9 · Checklist revision 1· merged checklist

LLM · Checklist revision 32026-10-08 · Opus 5.5 · primary · 17 Human · Checklist revision 1Complete · 9 CompareHuman vs LLM · shared criteria

Evaluated on: 2026-10-08 · Spec revision: 2025-04-13 · 7466599174

Scope at the cutoff. At this revision, EIP-7708 makes every nonzero-value ETH transfer emit a log. That covers three cases: a nonzero-value CALL, a SELFDESTRUCT that transfers nonzero value, and a nonzero-value transaction. Each log is "identical to a LOG3". Its three topics are MAGIC (still TBD), the sender address and the recipient address. Its data is the 32-byte big-endian transfer value. The transaction-level log comes before any logs from EVM execution. CALL and SELFDESTRUCT logs are emitted when the transfer executes. Whether withdrawals and fee payments should also emit logs is left as an open question. No gas cost, emitter address or revert handling is specified for the logs.

17MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v3
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 8 criteria affected
Plausible range: 14–23 (Medium–High)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-10-22 · EIP revision 7466599174 (2025-04-13)

Score bands · Checklist revision 3

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: MAGIC is TBD. The log's emitter address is unspecified, as are gas charging, revert handling, and coverage of CALLCODE, CREATE/CREATE2 endowments, contract-creation transactions, SELFDESTRUCT-to-self and failed value calls. Withdrawals and fees are explicit open questions. There is no test-case section.

Plausible total

14–23
recorded score 17 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Affected criteria (8)

EVM Gas rule changes (0)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (2)
New test-framework primitives (2)
Security risks (1)
Performance risks (1)
Edge/boundary conditions (2)
Cross-EIP interactions (2)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (8)

What is the MAGIC topic value?
What is the log's address field, both for in-EVM transfers and for the transaction-level log?
Is any gas charged for the emitted log?
Are transfer logs from reverted frames discarded like ordinary LOG3 logs?
Do CALLCODE, CREATE/CREATE2 with value, and contract-creation transactions emit logs?
Does a value CALL that fails (insufficient balance, depth limit) emit a log?
Does SELFDESTRUCT to itself, or a burn, emit a log, and with what recipient?
Should withdrawals and fee payments emit logs?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (5)

The abstract says all ETH transfers emit a log, but the specification lists only CALL, SELFDESTRUCT and transactions.
"identical to a LOG3" does not say which address emits the log, especially for the transaction-level log.
MAGIC is TBD, so the expected log contents cannot be fixed.
"nonzero-value CALL" could mean the requested value or an executed transfer, which matters for calls that fail before transferring.
Gas charging for the implicit log is never stated.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7708 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes	3	Emitted logs are part of instruction semantics, and the logs emitted by CALL and SELFDESTRUCT change.	eip.md · Specification / Functionality - "a nonzero-value CALL, (ii) a nonzero-value-transferring SELFDESTRUCT" CALL and SELFDESTRUCT now emit logs when they transfer value. Confidence: High Uncertainty: It is unclear whether CALLCODE and CREATE/CREATE2 with an endowment are also covered.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	2	Baseline tests that assert log lists or log indices for value-transferring transactions or calls need revised expected logs. Examples are LOG-opcode tests in transactions with value, and CALL or SELFDESTRUCT tests with value. Their logs hash, bloom and receipt root also change. This rework covers ordinary cases in several log-checking families. It mostly means regenerating expectations rather than a common restructuring, so level 2.	eip.md · Specification / Functionality - "The LOG of a value-transferring transaction should be placed before any logs created by EVM execution" Existing logs in value-transferring transactions move to later positions, and the logs, bloom and receipt commitments change. eip.md · Abstract All ETH transfers, including transactions, CALL and SELFDESTRUCT, emit a log. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Logs-hash and receipt-root changes affect nearly every value-transferring fixture. Whether that counts as a common cross-family rewrite (level 3) or as regeneration depends on how the tests are written.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	2	Baseline tests across many families (plain transfers, value calls, SELFDESTRUCT, contract interactions) must now check the new transfer log. Zero-value tests and pre-fork vectors are unaffected, so the requirement is neither universal nor re-derived for earlier forks.	eip.md · Specification / Functionality Every nonzero-value transaction, CALL or SELFDESTRUCT produces a new log. Confidence: High
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified	2	The tests need a new expectation helper that builds the expected transfer log from a transfer and places it correctly among the other logs (transaction log first; call logs inline). That is a new expectation abstraction within the target's suite.	eip.md · Specification / Functionality The log's topics and data are derived from the transfer (MAGIC, sender, recipient, value). Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: If the framework had to inject expected transfer logs into all existing log-checking families automatically, this could reach level 3. A simple log builder could be level 1.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	2	Several boundary-sensitive mechanisms are introduced. These are the nonzero-value triggers for transactions, CALL and SELFDESTRUCT; whether the transfer actually executes (insufficient balance, call depth, OOG); log ordering; and survival of logs in reverted frames. They can mostly be tested independently.	eip.md · Specification / Functionality - "nonzero-value" The log is emitted only when value is nonzero (the 0 vs 1 wei boundary) in three separate trigger sources. eip.md · Specification / Functionality - "placed before any logs created by EVM execution" Ordering rules for the transaction log and in-execution logs. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: An elevated matrix is possible: value × call success × enclosing-frame revert × SELFDESTRUCT beneficiary self/other. That could justify level 3.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified	2	The SELFDESTRUCT trigger needs coordinated cases against the baseline (Osaka) SELFDESTRUCT rules: same-transaction-created vs pre-existing contracts, beneficiary equal to self (burn), and balance-only transfer. ERC-20 needs only a local check that the log layout is compatible.	eip.md · Rationale - "The log type is compatible with the ERC-20 token standard" The log layout is intended to match the shape of the ERC-20 Transfer event. supporting/eip-20.md · front matter Only a moved-file stub, so the ERC-20 event definition is not supplied. eip.md · Specification / Functionality - "nonzero-value-transferring SELFDESTRUCT" Interacts with the baseline SELFDESTRUCT semantics, defined elsewhere. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The SELFDESTRUCT rules come from an EIP that is not supplied or named. The ERC-20 definition is not supplied either. Interacting EIPs: EIP-20
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Several consensus-visible outcomes (receipts and bloom) have competing interpretations: the MAGIC value, the log address field, gas charging, coverage of CALLCODE and CREATE, SELFDESTRUCT to self or burn, failed value calls, revert handling, and withdrawals and fees. Clients and the spec must agree on these before expected results can be fixed.	eip.md · Specification / Parameters - "MAGIC: TBD" The first topic of every transfer log is undefined. eip.md · Specification / Functionality - "identical to a LOG3" The log's emitter address field is not specified, especially for the transaction-level log. eip.md · Abstract - "All ETH-transfers" The abstract claims all transfers, but the functionality section lists only CALL, SELFDESTRUCT and transactions. CALLCODE, CREATE/CREATE2 endowments and creation transactions are ambiguous. eip.md · Rationale / Open questions Logging for withdrawals and fee payments is unresolved. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The emitter address and MAGIC apply to every transfer log. Depending on interpretation, that could justify level 3.
Security risksUnder-specified	1	The new security conditions are local: logs must be emitted exactly when a transfer happens, logs from reverted frames must not survive, and genuine transfer logs should be distinguishable from contract-emitted LOG3 forgeries. No other EL component's assumptions change.	eip.md · Motivation Exchanges and indexers would rely on these logs to track ETH deposits. eip.md · Specification / Parameters - "MAGIC: TBD" The topic is unspecified, so it is undefined whether contracts could forge identical logs with LOG3. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Without a defined emitter address, forgeability affects off-chain consumers. That could warrant targeted review (level 2).
Performance risksUnder-specified	1	Receipt and bloom generation and log storage grow on average. Component benchmarks of log-heavy value-transfer blocks are enough, and end-to-end assumptions stay bounded according to the spec.	eip.md · Security Considerations - "does not increase the worst-case number of logs" / "will somewhat increase the average number of logs" The worst case stays bounded by the 6700-gas minimum transfer cost. Average log volume rises. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: If the logs are free and the 6700 figure does not apply in some paths, worst-case log volume per gas could need validation.

Show 19 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No new opcodes.	eip.md · Specification No new instruction is introduced. The log is emitted implicitly.
Added precompiles	None added.	eip.md · Specification No precompile is defined.
Modified precompiles	No precompile semantics or gas change.	eip.md · Specification Precompile semantics are unchanged. A value CALL to a precompile emits a log through the CALL rule.
Added system contracts	None added.	eip.md · Specification No system contract is defined.
Modified system contracts	No existing system contract's rules or surrounding behavior change.	eip.md · Rationale / Open questions - "Should withdrawals also trigger a log?" Withdrawals and fees are left open, and no system contract behavior is changed. Uncertainty: It is unspecified whether system calls carrying value would emit logs, though baseline system calls are normally zero-value.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified	No execution-gas accounting rule is specified as changing. The log appears to be emitted without its own gas charge.	eip.md · Specification / Functionality Says to issue a log identical to a LOG3, but gives no gas charge for it. eip.md · Security Considerations - "much more expensive than the LOG3 opcode (1500 gas)" Compares transfer cost with LOG3 cost to bound the number of logs. This implies the log is not separately charged, but the text does not say so. Uncertainty: The text never says whether LOG3-equivalent gas is charged. If it were, the gas results of value-transferring CALL, SELFDESTRUCT and transactions would change (level 1).
State-access ordering within opcode execution	Emitting a log does not access state. The order of state access and gas charging in CALL and SELFDESTRUCT is unchanged, and no access-list rule is introduced.	eip.md · Specification / Functionality - "placed at the time that the value transfer executes" Sets where the log is placed, not the order of state access or gas charging.
Blob gas accounting changes	Blob gas is unaffected.	eip.md · Specification Nothing about blobs or blob gas.
State gas accounting changes	There are no state-gas accounting changes.	eip.md · Specification Logs are not state writes, and no state-gas accounting is defined.
New EVM gas refund	No refund is introduced.	eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is mentioned.
New transaction types	None.	eip.md · Specification No new transaction type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	Transaction validity is unchanged.	eip.md · Specification No validity or intrinsic-gas change.
New block / header fields	Changed values in existing fields do not count.	eip.md · Specification No header field is added. The existing receiptsRoot and logsBloom values change.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	New values within an unchanged receipt and log schema do not count.	eip.md · Specification / Functionality - "identical to a LOG3" Reuses the existing log and receipt schema.
Block syncing changes	Only receipt contents change, through ordinary execution. Structural validation is unchanged.	eip.md · Specification No change to block structure or decoding.
New fork activation mechanism	No activation-specific transition.	eip.md · Specification Only a rule change, with no state migration.
Engine API changes	No Engine API fields or endpoints change.	eip.md · Specification No Engine API change.
Transition-tool interface changes	Logs are already a t8n output. No new input, output field or mechanism is needed.	eip.md · Specification / Functionality - "identical to a LOG3" Uses the existing log format, which is already reported in receipts. Uncertainty: No transition-tool evidence was supplied.
Cryptography	No cryptographic change.	eip.md · Specification No cryptographic rules are involved. Bloom and receipt hashing are unchanged.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@7466599174 EIPS/eip-7708.md committed 2025-04-13 · information cutoff 2025-10-22T20:52:23Z
Current master · File history · blob a0758eccab · sha256 87520fb55cfb
Rubric: Checklist revision 3 · ethspecs/pm@fe2f793b03
Evaluator: Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5) at high effort, one tool-less call per EIP · isolation bubblewrap_claude_p_no_tools_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/10-opus-v3-reassessment/retrospective/outputs/assessments/amsterdam/eip-7708.yaml · sha256 6e6720ac90af
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP: supporting/eip-20.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded · Spec revision: 2025-04-13 · 7466599174

9LowLow

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v1
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2025-11-05 · EIP at 7466599174
Source: merged ethspecs/pm checklist

Score bands · Checklist revision 1

Low <10
Medium 10–19
High ≥20

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

Modified system contracts2
Performance risks2
Edge/boundary conditions2
Modified opcodes1

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7708 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Modified system contracts	2	Some system contracts do receive/transfer Eth, and while existing tests might be sufficient, we need to double check that this change does not break current behavior (particularly the beacon deposit contract).	—
Performance risks	2	Test worst-case scenario of a transaction/block transfering Eth in multiple ways.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	2	All 0->1 boundaries have to be tested in all possible scenarios where Eth is transfered.	—
Modified opcodes	1	*CALL opcodes and SELFDESTRUCT/SENDALL behavior is slightly modified.	—
Transition-tool interface changes	1	Rather than a change to the T8N interface, we have to enhance execution-specs testing framework to verify the logs returned from T8N, because at the moment we just pass along the log list that was received from T8N to the test to be compared against the clients.	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	All tests will now issue Eth-transfer logs, which might be a non-issue but does touch basically every single test.	—

Show 18 zero-score criteria

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

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@7466599174 EIPS/eip-7708.md committed 2025-04-13
EIP master revision at the time of the human checklist commit; the checklist itself does not pin an EIP revision.
Current master · File history · blob a0758eccab · sha256 87520fb55cfb
Rubric: Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Merged checklist ethspecs/pm@72a1fc653d complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7708.md · committed 2025-11-05
blob 092e5bab2a · sha256 a2652b18c2cf
Research record: research/tasks/05c-amsterdam-human-assessment-alignment/inputs/human/eip-7708.yaml · sha256 4e334dac152a

The LLM applied checklist revision 3 and the human reviewers revision 1 to EIP-7708 in Amsterdam / Glamsterdam. Revision 3 phrases the same criteria more precisely; differences cover the 23 criteria both revisions share, and each total keeps its own revision. Δ is LLM minus Human.

LLM17Medium

Human9Low

Δ total+8Tiers differ: Medium vs Low

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

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

Exposure evidence

The rationale describes the then-current execution-specs test-framework handling of transition-tool logs and a required enhancement.

The human-time and approved Task 04 EIP commits resolve to the same Git blob.

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Modified system contracts (−2), Modified opcodes (+2), Cross-EIP interactions (+2), Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (+1), Transition-tool interface changes (−1)

Show differences only (13 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Modified opcodes	3	1	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Emitted logs are part of instruction semantics, and the logs emitted by CALL and SELFDESTRUCT change. Human *CALL opcodes and SELFDESTRUCT/SENDALL behavior is slightly modified.
Modified system contracts	0	2	−2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM No existing system contract's rules or surrounding behavior change. Human Some system contracts do receive/transfer Eth, and while existing tests might be sufficient, we need to double check that this change does not break current behavior (particularly the beacon deposit contract).
Cross-EIP interactions	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The SELFDESTRUCT trigger needs coordinated cases against the baseline (Osaka) SELFDESTRUCT rules: same-transaction-created vs pre-existing contracts, beneficiary equal to self (burn), and balance-only transfer. ERC-20 needs only a local check that the log layout is compatible. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Logs are already a t8n output. No new input, output field or mechanism is needed. Human Rather than a change to the T8N interface, we have to enhance execution-specs testing framework to verify the logs returned from T8N, because at the moment we just pass along the log list that was received from T8N to the test to be compared against the clients.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Baseline tests that assert log lists or log indices for value-transferring transactions or calls need revised expected logs. Examples are LOG-opcode tests in transactions with value, and CALL or SELFDESTRUCT tests with value. Their logs hash, bloom and receipt root also change. This rework covers ordinary cases in several log-checking families. It mostly means regenerating expectations rather than a common restructuring, so level 2. Human All tests will now issue Eth-transfer logs, which might be a non-issue but does touch basically every single test.
Security risks	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The new security conditions are local: logs must be emitted exactly when a transfer happens, logs from reverted frames must not survive, and genuine transfer logs should be distinguishable from contract-emitted LOG3 forgeries. No other EL component's assumptions change. Human No rationale recorded.
Performance risks	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Receipt and bloom generation and log storage grow on average. Component benchmarks of log-heavy value-transfer blocks are enough, and end-to-end assumptions stay bounded according to the spec. Human Test worst-case scenario of a transaction/block transfering Eth in multiple ways.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new opcodes. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None added. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile semantics or gas change. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None added. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No execution-gas accounting rule is specified as changing. The log appears to be emitted without its own gas charge. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Blob gas is unaffected. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No refund is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Transaction validity is unchanged. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Changed values in existing fields do not count. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM New values within an unchanged receipt and log schema do not count. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Only receipt contents change, through ordinary execution. Structural validation is unchanged. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No activation-specific transition. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No Engine API fields or endpoints change. Human No rationale recorded.
Edge/boundary conditions	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Several boundary-sensitive mechanisms are introduced. These are the nonzero-value triggers for transactions, CALL and SELFDESTRUCT; whether the transfer actually executes (insufficient balance, call depth, OOG); log ordering; and survival of logs in reverted frames. They can mostly be tested independently. Human All 0->1 boundaries have to be tested in all possible scenarios where Eth is transfered.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic change. Human No rationale recorded.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Emitting a log does not access state. The order of state access and gas charging in CALL and SELFDESTRUCT is unchanged, and no access-list rule is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM There are no state-gas accounting changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API encoding changes	n/a	0	—	Only in revision 1	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	2	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Baseline tests across many families (plain transfers, value calls, SELFDESTRUCT, contract interactions) must now check the new transfer log. Zero-value tests and pre-fork vectors are unaffected, so the requirement is neither universal nor re-derived for earlier forks. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	2	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM The tests need a new expectation helper that builds the expected transfer log from a transfer and places it correctly among the other logs (transaction log first; call logs inline). That is a new expectation abstraction within the target's suite. Human No rationale recorded.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Several consensus-visible outcomes (receipts and bloom) have competing interpretations: the MAGIC value, the log address field, gas charging, coverage of CALLCODE and CREATE, SELFDESTRUCT to self or burn, failed value calls, revert handling, and withdrawals and fees. Clients and the spec must agree on these before expected results can be fixed. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-7708 with other assessments All Amsterdam / Glamsterdam assessments

Criterion legend and glossary

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

EVM surface

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

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

Gas and accounting

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

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

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

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

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

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

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

Testing impact

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

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

Risk and validation

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

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

Coordination

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

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