EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7778: Block Gas Accounting without Refunds

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 2025-09-03Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 13

Human Completescore 10 · Checklist revision 1· merged checklist

LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-25 · Primary study score · 13 LLM · Checklist revision 12026-08-25 · Re-run for the human comparison · 8 Human · Checklist revision 1Complete · 10 CompareHuman vs LLM · same checklist revision

Evaluated on: 2026-08-25 · Spec revision: 2025-09-03 · 9f795ed298

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-7778 proposed retaining existing gas refunds for user transaction costs while counting gas before refunds toward the block gas limit. It required the sum of unrefunded transaction gas to remain within the block limit, while retaining discounts described as reflecting reduced work, and identified a hard fork plus block-producer transaction-selection changes.

13MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 7 criteria affected
Plausible range: 10–15 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-09-03 · EIP revision 9f795ed298 (2025-09-03)

Score bands · Checklist revision 2

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

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 proposal defines the high-level split between refunded transaction gas and unrefunded block gas, but does not fully specify how the two quantities map to consensus block and receipt values or exhaustively define the boundary between excluded refunds and retained storage discounts. These omissions affect exact vector baselines without changing the proposal's core accounting direction.

Plausible total

10–15
recorded score 13 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Affected criteria (7)

Transition-tool interface changes (0)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (2)
New invariant on pre-existing tests (0)
Performance risks (2)
Edge/boundary conditions (2)
Cross-EIP interactions (2)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

Does block.gas_used denote the encoded block-header gas-used value, only an internal validity accumulator, or both?
What gas values should receipts and cumulative transaction-gas fields expose when transaction accounting remains refunded but block accounting is gross?
Which adjustments are refunds excluded from block accounting, and which are discounts that remain applied, especially for reverting storage to its original value?
Must a transition-tool interface expose both net transaction gas and gross block gas separately, or is changing an existing result sufficient?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The notation block.gas_used is not tied explicitly to the block header, receipts, or an internal-only accumulator.
The examples distinguish refunds from storage discounts, but do not provide a complete classification of adjustments for consensus testing.
Backwards compatibility says only producers need to adjust transaction selection, while the specification also imposes a consensus block-limit rule that validators must evaluate.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7778 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	2	Existing block and refund vectors containing refundable operations need their expected block accounting or validity reworked. This can be a considerable set, but it is confined to the refund-bearing category, matching anchor 2.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 66-78 The EIP calls for refund-producing SSTORE cases, blocks with varying amounts of refundable work, gas-limit enforcement cases, and comparisons of transaction gas with block gas. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 60-64 The accounting change is not backwards compatible and requires a hard fork. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The text does not identify the historical test corpus or state whether the changed block accumulator is reflected in every existing block-gas expectation.
Security risks	2	The consensus-critical accumulator interacts with existing transaction refunds and block validation. Incorrect implementation could create divergent block acceptance or preserve the stated denial-of-service condition, warranting targeted review and fuzzing of a limited component set under anchor 2.	eip.md · Motivation, lines 23-27 The stated failure mode includes oversized blocks, denial-of-service vectors, and computational loads beyond the intended limit. eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 80-84 The new enforcement is intended to prevent producers from including excessive aggregate work and to improve block-processing predictability. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The security section states intended benefits but does not analyze divergence, overflow, or mixed-refund failure cases in detail.
Performance risksUnder-specified	2	Validating the new workload bound requires mixed transaction and refund-bearing block benchmarks rather than only an isolated accumulator benchmark. Its effect on existing performance workloads is limited to blocks using refunds, matching anchor 2.	eip.md · Motivation, lines 19-27 The EIP identifies blocks whose gross work exceeds their net gas and cites oversized blocks, instability, denial of service, and excess computational load as the problem. eip.md · Rationale and Security Considerations, lines 49-53 and 80-84 The intended effect is to constrain actual block workload and make processing time more predictable. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The EIP gives one observed workload example but no benchmark methodology or complete set of refund-heavy workloads.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	2	There are multiple boundary-prone aspects: cumulative equality versus excess, variable refund amounts across transactions, and classification of discounts that remain applied. None is described as requiring an exceptionally large case matrix, matching anchor 2.	eip.md · Specification and Test Cases, lines 33-45 and 68-78 Tests must cover the unrefunded cumulative gas at the block limit, varying refund amounts, the divergence between transaction and block gas, and the distinction between refunds and retained storage discounts. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The exact refund and discount cases covered by the general wording are not exhaustively enumerated.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified	2	The proposal centrally modifies how pre-existing refund rules feed block gas and must be tested together with the retained storage-discount rules. That requires coordinated but limited-scope testing, matching anchor 2. The historical EIP supplies no EIP numbers for those interactions, so none are inferred.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-15 and 33-40 The proposal changes the block-level effect of established gas-refund rules, particularly refunds arising from storage clearing, while retaining their transaction-level effect. eip.md · Specification - Block Gas Accounting, lines 37-40 Existing warm-access and revert-to-original-value discounts are stated to remain applied, requiring their treatment to be coordinated with the new rule. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The interacting mechanisms are named, but their EIP identifiers and complete boundaries are absent from the package.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Clients must agree on localized, constructible cases such as the mapping of gross gas to block and receipt values and the refund-versus-discount boundary before vectors can be baselined. This matches anchor 2, not anchor 3, because the EIP is not making a formerly unobservable behavior consensus-critical.	eip.md · Specification - Gas Accounting Changes, lines 33-45 The text gives formulas for transaction and block gas and says some storage discounts remain, but it does not define the protocol fields carrying each value or exhaustively distinguish retained discounts from excluded refunds. eip.md · Test Cases, lines 66-78 The requested comparisons and varying-refund blocks require exact expected values that the short specification does not fully enumerate. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The package contains no supporting specification that resolves these localized accounting semantics.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	This updates the existing EVM block gas accounting rule, matching anchor 1; the proposal characterizes it as a modification rather than a separate new gas accounting mechanism.	eip.md · Specification - Gas Accounting Changes, lines 33-45 Transaction gas remains net of refunds, while the existing block gas accumulator and block-limit check use gas without subtracting refunds. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The precise protocol representation of block.gas_used is not defined, but the existence of an update to the existing accounting rule is clear.

Show 21 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is added, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Abstract and Test Cases, lines 13-15 and 66-78 SSTORE is an example used to produce an existing refund; the proposal defines no new instruction.
Modified opcodes	No opcode result or non-gas behavior is modified, and gas-only changes are excluded by this anchor; score 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification - User Gas Costs, lines 33-40 Qualifying operations and user refund behavior remain unchanged; only the downstream block accumulator stops subtracting refunds.
Added precompiles	No precompile is introduced, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-45 The proposal adds only a block gas accounting rule and no callable precompiled function or address.
Modified precompiles	No existing precompile is modified, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-45 No precompile logic or precompile-specific gas schedule is mentioned or changed by the refund treatment.
Added system contracts	No system contract is introduced, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-45 The complete mechanism is expressed as gas accounting and block-limit enforcement, with no contract deployment or designated system address.
Modified system contracts	No direct or package-established indirect system-contract modification exists, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-45 The gas-accounting rule does not identify or alter the code, state, or behavior of any pre-existing system contract.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No opcode-internal state-access or gas-charge ordering changes, so anchor 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification - Gas Accounting Changes, lines 33-40 The change concerns whether refunds are subtracted at transaction and block aggregation time; it does not move a state access or a gas charge within an opcode's execution.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob gas accounting mechanism is changed, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-45 The proposal addresses ordinary block gas and EVM refunds; it specifies no blob gas rule.
State gas accounting changes	The rubric's distinct state-gas mechanism is not introduced or adjusted, so anchor 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification - Gas Accounting Changes, lines 33-45 Storage clearing is used as an example of an EVM refund, but the specified change is to ordinary block gas accounting and not to a separate state-gas cost, budget, reservoir, or spill path.
New EVM gas refund	Existing refunds are preserved rather than a new refund mechanism being added, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Specification - User Gas Costs, lines 33-35 Users continue to receive already-qualifying refunds and transaction gas remains gas used minus gas refund.
New transaction types	No new transaction type is introduced, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Specification - User Gas Costs, lines 33-40 Existing transactions retain their gas-cost behavior while their gas is accumulated differently at block scope; no transaction envelope is added.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	The change is to block validity, not existing transaction-type validity, so anchor 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 33-45 and 60-64 Transaction gas costs are explicitly unchanged; the new limit is a block-level sum and does not alter transaction validity or intrinsic gas calculation.
New block / header fields	Modification of the calculation associated with an existing value is not the introduction of a new field; anchor 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification - Block Gas Accounting, lines 37-45 The proposal changes block.gas_used accumulation and enforcement but does not add a block or header field. Uncertainty: The EIP does not explicitly identify how block.gas_used maps to the encoded header and receipts, but it never specifies an additional field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No RLP, SSZ, or other interface encoding is introduced, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 29-45 and 60-64 The hard-fork change concerns how a gas value is calculated and supplies no transaction, block, or interface encoding change.
Block syncing changes	A consensus block-validity calculation changes without an RLP validation mechanism being added, so the rubric's block-syncing anchor remains 0.	eip.md · Specification - Block Gas Limit Enforcement, lines 42-45 Block validity uses the sum of unrefunded gas, but the EIP introduces no new RLP field, decoding rule, or RLP validation mechanism.
New fork activation mechanism	Fork-gated use of a new rule alone is not an activation-block modification; anchor 0 applies.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 60-64 A hard fork is required, but the EIP specifies no one-time state mutation or internal-variable modification at the activation block.
Engine API changes	No Engine API field or endpoint is introduced, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 29-45 and 60-64 The proposal specifies gas accounting and producer selection behavior but no Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified	The changed result can be expressed through the existing block gas result; no transition-tool interface modification is specified as required, so anchor 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification - Gas Accounting Changes, lines 33-45 The EIP changes the calculation of block gas used but introduces no new transition input, output, or fork-activation flag. Uncertainty: The text does not define whether both refunded transaction gas and unrefunded block gas must be surfaced separately by a transition tool.
New invariant on pre-existing testsUnder-specified	Existing expectations may be reworked, but tests do not clearly gain a distinct new invariant to assert; anchor 0 applies.	eip.md · Specification and Test Cases, lines 37-45 and 66-78 The proposal changes the value used by an existing block-limit rule and asks for direct feature tests, but specifies no additional output or assertion for otherwise unrelated tests. Uncertainty: A fuller definition of whether block.gas_used denotes an existing header value or a separate accumulator could change whether a new assertion is needed.
New test-framework primitives	These cases can use existing transaction, block, gas, and validity assertions; no new framework abstraction is required, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 66-78 The requested tests construct ordinary SSTORE transactions and blocks and compare transaction and block gas values.
Cryptography	No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or modified, matching anchor 0.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-45 The proposal is solely a gas-refund and block-limit accounting change and contains no cryptographic construction or operation.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@9f795ed298 EIPS/eip-7778.md committed 2025-09-03 · information cutoff 2025-09-03T20:52:20Z
Current master · File history · blob e4bdd606c2 · sha256 f52d1a5d0a12
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/amsterdam/eip-7778.yaml · sha256 56ab26670309

Evaluated on: 2026-08-25 · Spec revision: 2025-09-03 · 9f795ed298

Scope at the cutoff. At the sealed historical cutoff, draft EIP-7778 changes existing execution-layer block gas accounting so refunds still reduce user transaction cost but no longer reduce gas counted against the block gas limit. The assessment covers only the draft text and the sealed historical checklist.

8LowLow

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v1
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 9 criteria affected
Plausible range: 5–13 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-09-03 · EIP revision 9f795ed298 (2025-09-03)

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 LLM total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

Security risks2
EVM Gas rule changes1
Block syncing changes1
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: The draft states the high-level split between net transaction gas and unrefunded block gas but does not fully define how the gross quantity propagates through block/header consistency, receipts, validation tooling, or execution interfaces. It also gives no normative classification of every retained discount versus excluded refund and provides only qualitative test and risk guidance.

Plausible total

5–13
recorded score 8 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Affected criteria (9)

New block / header fields (0)
Block syncing changes (1)
Engine API changes (0)
Transition-tool interface changes (0)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (1)
Security risks (2)
Performance risks (1)
Edge/boundary conditions (1)
Cross-EIP interactions (1)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)

What exact gas quantity must populate each block-level and receipt-level gas value after the fork?
What normative rule distinguishes excluded refunds from discounts that continue to reduce block gas accounting?
Must transition tooling or an existing Engine API value expose the unrefunded gas total, and if so with what semantics?
What exact boundary vectors, pre-existing test updates, benchmarks, and security cases are required?
What prior EIPs form the intended normative dependency and interaction set?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The historical checklist includes Engine API encoding changes but provides no dedicated definition or score anchors for that row.
The draft uses gas_used for both the pre-refund quantity and the derived transaction and block accounting expressions without defining all externally observable values.
The draft preserves discounts reflecting reduced work but gives examples rather than a complete normative classification separating those discounts from refunds.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7778 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Security risksUnder-specified	2	Correctness links existing refund calculation with block-limit validation and producer selection, slightly altering a consensus-critical security invariant and warranting targeted review or fuzzing; the interaction remains limited in scope.	eip.md · ## Motivation; ## Security Considerations The proposal changes consensus enforcement intended to prevent oversized-work blocks, denial of service, and unstable block-processing loads. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The draft states the protected risks but supplies no detailed threat model or malformed-block/fuzzing plan.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	This updates the existing block gas accounting mechanism, matching score 1; the proposal does not introduce a separate gas domain independent of existing gas use.	eip.md · ## Specification > ### Gas Accounting Changes User transaction gas remains net of refunds, while block accounting changes to accumulate gas before subtracting refunds. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The accounting intent is explicit, although the exact propagation of the two gas quantities is under-specified elsewhere in the draft.
Block syncing changesUnder-specified	1	This is one simple new block-validation rule that syncing clients must enforce, matching score 1.	eip.md · ## Specification > ### Block Gas Limit Enforcement; ## Backwards Compatibility A block is invalid when its transactions' unrefunded gas sum exceeds the limit, and the change is declared hard-fork incompatible. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The draft does not describe RLP validation, header consistency, or sync fixtures, so the rubric's specific RLP mapping is inferred only from the stated block rule.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	1	Existing tests involving refundable operations at block-gas boundaries form a focused, minor subset, matching score 1 rather than a broad rework.	eip.md · ## Test Cases Tests must distinguish user gas from block gas and cover storage-clearing transactions and blocks near the gas limit. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The draft gives test categories but no inventory or count of pre-existing tests, so the affected subset cannot be measured directly.
Performance risksUnder-specified	1	The added pre-refund accumulator and selection constraint are localized and can be benchmarked in isolation; no complex performance interaction is specified.	eip.md · ## Motivation; ## Backwards Compatibility; ## Security Considerations The rule bounds computational work more strictly, changes producer transaction selection, and is intended to improve block-processing-time predictability. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: No benchmarks or performance-validation plan is supplied, and the effect on existing maximum-block workloads is described only qualitatively.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	1	The revised block-gas accumulator is one boundary-prone mechanism, so the single- mechanism score of 1 applies.	eip.md · ## Test Cases > 2. Block Gas Limit Edge Cases The draft calls for blocks with varying refundable operations and enforcement at the block gas limit. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Exact numeric vectors and the normative boundary between refunds and retained storage discounts are not supplied.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified	1	This is a limited interaction with pre-existing refund and storage-gas mechanisms that remains mostly independently testable, matching score 1.	eip.md · ## Specification > ### Gas Accounting Changes; ## Rationale The rule depends on existing refund behavior and expressly preserves storage discounts while changing how refunds contribute at block level. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: No interacting EIP identifiers or normative dependency list is provided, so the full cross-EIP surface cannot be established from the sealed draft.

Show 17 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 1)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No new opcode is introduced.	eip.md · ## Specification > ### Gas Accounting Changes The draft changes accounting around existing operations and adds no opcode. Uncertainty: None material; no opcode addition appears in the specification.
Modified opcodes	No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified apart from the gas-accounting change, which the rubric expressly excludes from this binary row.	eip.md · ## Specification > ### Gas Accounting Changes; ## Test Cases > 1. SSTORE Operations SSTORE is an example source of an existing refund; user-visible transaction behavior remains unchanged and only block-level gas accounting changes. Uncertainty: None material under the row's explicit exclusion of gas changes.
Added precompiles	No new precompile is specified.	eip.md · ## Specification No precompile is introduced by the accounting rule. Uncertainty: No precompile scope is present in the sealed proposal.
Modified precompiles	No existing precompile is modified.	eip.md · ## Specification No precompile logic or gas schedule is named or modified. Uncertainty: No precompile interaction is identified in the sealed proposal.
Added system contracts	No system contract is added.	eip.md · ## Specification The accounting change introduces no contract or contract deployment. Uncertainty: No system-contract mechanism is present in the sealed proposal.
Modified system contracts	No direct or indirect system-contract modification is specified.	eip.md · ## Specification The draft modifies block gas accounting without mentioning any system contract. Uncertainty: No system-contract dependency is identified in the sealed proposal.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob gas accounting mechanism is added or modified.	eip.md · ## Abstract; ## Specification The proposal is limited to execution gas refunds and the block gas limit and specifies no blob gas rule. Uncertainty: No blob behavior is described anywhere in the sealed proposal.
New EVM gas refund	The proposal preserves existing refunds rather than creating a new refund mechanism.	eip.md · ## Specification > ### Gas Accounting Changes > 1. User Gas Costs (Unchanged) Existing qualifying refunds continue to reduce transaction gas cost; no refund type or calculation is introduced. Uncertainty: None material; the draft expressly labels user gas costs unchanged.
New transaction types	No new transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · ## Specification > ### Gas Accounting Changes > 1. User Gas Costs (Unchanged) Existing transactions retain their user gas-cost treatment; no transaction type is added. Uncertainty: None material; the draft defines no transaction envelope or type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No transaction validity rule or intrinsic gas calculation changes, so score 0 applies despite the separate block-validity change.	eip.md · ## Specification > ### Gas Accounting Changes; ## Backwards Compatibility Transaction gas cost remains net of refunds and individual user/developer experience is stated to remain unchanged; enforcement changes at block level. Uncertainty: The draft clearly locates the new constraint at block rather than transaction validity.
New block / header fieldsUnder-specified	No new field is specified, so the binary row scores 0.	eip.md · ## Specification > ### Block Gas Limit Enforcement The proposal changes calculation and enforcement but introduces no new block or header field. Uncertainty: The meaning and propagation of the named block gas-used quantity are not fully defined, but the draft does not add a field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No RLP, SSZ, or other encoding change is introduced.	eip.md · ## Specification The draft changes an accounting rule and specifies no transaction, block, or interface encoding. Uncertainty: None material; the specification contains no encoding change.
New fork activation mechanism	Requiring fork activation does not itself meet the row's state/internal-variable modification condition, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · ## Backwards Compatibility A hard fork is required, with no state or internal-variable modification at activation specified. Uncertainty: The draft provides no special activation-block transition or state mutation.
Engine API changesUnder-specified	The score-0 definition applies because no new Engine API field or mechanism is specified.	eip.md · ## Specification; ## Backwards Compatibility The proposal adds no Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism. Uncertainty: The draft does not explain whether existing payload gas values need semantic coordination, but that is not an added field or endpoint under this row.
Engine API encoding changes	Conservatively applying the row label and global score range, no visible Engine API encoding change supports a nonzero score.	eip.md · ## Specification No Engine API encoding is specified or modified. rubric.md · ### Testing > #### Anchors; ### Checklist The checklist names Engine API encoding changes but supplies no dedicated anchor definition for that row. Uncertainty: The historical rubric has no dedicated definition for this row, so its precise scope and score anchors are unavailable.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified	No transition-tool interface modification is specified, so score 0 applies.	eip.md · ## Specification; ## Backwards Compatibility The draft specifies an internal accounting rule and producer selection changes, but no transition-tool field or interface mechanism. Uncertainty: The draft does not say whether tooling must expose the unrefunded block-gas total; that integration detail is materially under-specified.
Cryptography	No cryptography mechanism or cryptographic functionality is introduced or modified.	eip.md · ## Specification The specification changes gas accounting and introduces no cryptographic operation. Uncertainty: No cryptographic scope is present in the sealed proposal.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@9f795ed298 EIPS/eip-7778.md committed 2025-09-03 · information cutoff 2025-09-03T20:52:20Z
Current master · File history · blob e4bdd606c2 · sha256 f52d1a5d0a12
Rubric: Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator: gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/05c-amsterdam-human-assessment-alignment/outputs/automated/eip-7778.yaml · sha256 1cb50433da6b

Evaluated on: Not recorded · Spec revision: 2025-12-04 · 3a8ab8c6bc

10MediumMedium

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v1
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2025-12-19 · EIP at 3a8ab8c6bc
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 opcodes3
EVM Gas rule changes3
Edge/boundary conditions2
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms1

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7778 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Modified opcodes	3	No rationale recorded.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	3	This has the potential to affect any tests near the block gas limit that contain refunds.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	2	All refunding opcodes need to be tested near the block gas limit.	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	1	Technically block validity, but a transaction that could be included previously would make a block invalid after this EIP	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	No rationale recorded.	—

Show 19 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.	—
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	—
New transaction types	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.	—
Transition-tool interface changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Security risks	No rationale recorded.	—
Performance risks	No rationale recorded.	—
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	No rationale recorded.	—

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@3a8ab8c6bc EIPS/eip-7778.md committed 2025-12-04
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 e968d850d5 · sha256 2ade451bb835
Rubric: Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Merged checklist ethspecs/pm@099b684c84 complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7778.md · committed 2025-12-19
blob 459b3510b0 · sha256 d3c6080a3fba
Research record: research/tasks/05c-amsterdam-human-assessment-alignment/inputs/human/eip-7778.yaml · sha256 0d6537908e3f

Both assessments applied Checklist revision 1 (24 criteria) to EIP-7778 in Amsterdam / Glamsterdam. Δ is LLM minus Human.

LLM8Low

Human10Medium

Δ total−2Tiers differ: Low vs Medium

Criteria16/24agree exactly · 5 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: substantive drift; human hindsight exposure: low exposure. The study's primary LLM score under checklist revision 2 is 13; it uses a different criterion inventory and thresholds and is not directly comparable to either total here.

Exposure evidence

The assessment uses proposal-level reasoning about refunds and block gas limits without identifying an implementation, devnet, or completed test effort.

Substantive intervening revisions: Adds a note to the user gas-cost rule: because receipts store the post-refund gas_used value, validating block gas limits from receipts requires tracking refunds during transaction execution and adding them back to each transaction's gas_used when computing cumulative block gas usage.

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Modified opcodes (−3), EVM Gas rule changes (−2), Security risks (+2), Edge/boundary conditions (−1), Block syncing changes (+1)

Show differences only (8 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	0	3	−3	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified apart from the gas-accounting change, which the rubric expressly excludes from this binary row. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	3	−2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM This updates the existing block gas accounting mechanism, matching score 1; the proposal does not introduce a separate gas domain independent of existing gas use. Human This has the potential to affect any tests near the block gas limit that contain refunds.
Security risks	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Correctness links existing refund calculation with block-limit validation and producer selection, slightly altering a consensus-critical security invariant and warranting targeted review or fuzzing; the interaction remains limited in scope. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM No transaction validity rule or intrinsic gas calculation changes, so score 0 applies despite the separate block-validity change. Human Technically block validity, but a transaction that could be included previously would make a block invalid after this EIP
Block syncing changes	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM This is one simple new block-validation rule that syncing clients must enforce, matching score 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Performance risks	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The added pre-refund accumulator and selection constraint are localized and can be benchmarked in isolation; no complex performance interaction is specified. Human No rationale recorded.
Edge/boundary conditions	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The revised block-gas accumulator is one boundary-prone mechanism, so the single- mechanism score of 1 applies. Human All refunding opcodes need to be tested near the block gas limit.
Cross-EIP interactions	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM This is a limited interaction with pre-existing refund and storage-gas mechanisms that remains mostly independently testable, matching score 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new opcode is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new precompile is specified. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No existing precompile is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract is added. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No direct or indirect system-contract modification is specified. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob gas accounting mechanism is added or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal preserves existing refunds rather than creating a new refund mechanism. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new transaction type is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new field is specified, so the binary row scores 0. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No RLP, SSZ, or other encoding change is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Requiring fork activation does not itself meet the row's state/internal-variable modification condition, so score 0 applies. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The score-0 definition applies because no new Engine API field or mechanism is specified. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API encoding changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Conservatively applying the row label and global score range, no visible Engine API encoding change supports a nonzero score. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transition-tool interface modification is specified, so score 0 applies. Human No rationale recorded.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Existing tests involving refundable operations at block-gas boundaries form a focused, minor subset, matching score 1 rather than a broad rework. Human No rationale recorded.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptography mechanism or cryptographic functionality is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-7778 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 · 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.