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 32026-10-08 · Opus 5.5 · primary · 13 Human · Checklist revision 1Complete · 10 CompareHuman vs LLM · shared criteria

Evaluated on: 2026-10-08 · Spec revision: 2025-09-03 · 9f795ed298

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7778 (revision 9f795ed, Draft) changes block-level gas accounting so that gas refunds, mainly from SSTORE setting slots to zero, are no longer subtracted when computing the gas counted against the block gas limit: `block.gas_used += gas_used`, with refunds not subtracted. What users pay stays the same (`tx.gas_used = gas_used - gas_refund`). Storage discounts that reflect less actual work, such as warm access or reverting a slot to its original value, still count toward block gas. Under the new rule, the sum of unrefunded gas across all transactions must not exceed the block gas limit. The change needs a hard fork and adds no new transaction types, opcodes, header fields or contracts.

13MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v3
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 6 criteria affected
Plausible range: 13–20 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-09-03 · EIP revision 9f795ed298 (2025-09-03)

Score bands · Checklist revision 3

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
Cross-EIP interactions2
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2
EVM Gas rule changes1

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 EIP defines only block.gas_used. It does not say how receipts' cumulative gas, the per-transaction inclusion check, base-fee inputs or any transaction gas floor relate to the unrefunded accounting.

Plausible total

13–20
recorded score 13 · plausible tiers Medium

Affected criteria (6)

New or modified transaction validity mechanisms (1)
Block syncing changes (0)
Engine API changes (0)
Transition-tool interface changes (1)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (2)
Edge/boundary conditions (1)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

Does receipt cumulativeGasUsed record refunded or unrefunded gas?
Does the check that a transaction's gas limit fits the remaining block gas use the unrefunded running total?
Is the header gasUsed used for base-fee adjustment the unrefunded value?
How does 'gas_used' relate to any per-transaction minimum gas floor?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The meaning of receipt cumulative gas and its effect on the receipts root are not specified.
It is unspecified whether the transaction inclusion check against remaining block gas uses unrefunded totals.
Base-fee dynamics probably change because header gasUsed changes, but this is not stated.

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	Any baseline block test whose transactions earn refunds needs new expected header gasUsed values and may need revised block-gas-limit fill boundaries. Affected families include SSTORE clearing and refund tests, other refund-producing paths in the baseline, and block gas limit filling tests. These are localized cases in several families rather than a common rewrite of every family.	eip.md · Test Cases / Transaction Gas vs Block Gas Block gas accounting must exclude refunds while user transaction costs stay unchanged. eip.md · Test Cases / SSTORE Operations Storage-clearing operations now count at full cost toward the block. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: If receipt cumulativeGasUsed must also change (unspecified), the rework would be broader.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	Coordinated cases are needed with the existing SSTORE refund and discount rules, which the text references without EIP numbers. Tests must separate refunds, which are excluded from block gas, from discounts, which remain. With no candidate EIPs supplied, these interactions are recorded as unidentified.	eip.md · Specification / Block Gas Accounting (Modified) Warm-access and reverting-to-original discounts stay applied; refunds do not. eip.md · Test Cases / SSTORE Operations Storage-clearing refunds interact with block accounting. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Interactions with base-fee calculation, the refund cap, other refund sources and per-transaction gas floors are plausible but not stated.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	Several consensus-visible outcomes are left unresolved and allow competing readings. (a) Whether receipt cumulativeGasUsed, and so the receipts root, uses refunded or unrefunded gas. (b) Whether the pre-execution transaction-limit check against remaining block gas uses unrefunded totals. (c) Whether 'gas_used' means gas before or after any per-transaction gas floor. (d) Whether header gasUsed is the value fed into base-fee adjustment. Clients and specs must agree on these before expected results can be fixed.	eip.md · Specification / Block Gas Accounting (Modified) Only block.gas_used is defined. Receipt cumulative gas, the per-transaction inclusion check and base-fee inputs are not addressed. eip.md · Specification / User Gas Costs (Unchanged) tx.gas_used = gas_used - gas_refund, with no statement about receipts. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Some of these may be intended to follow implicitly from header gasUsed redefinition, but the text doesn't state it.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	An existing settlement rule changes: the block gas counter now adds pre-refund gas. User-side refund settlement is unchanged. No new charging mechanism is added, only a changed increment to an existing counter, so level 1.	eip.md · Specification / Block Gas Accounting (Modified) Block gas accounting becomes block.gas_used += gas_used without subtracting refunds, while tx.gas_used remains gas_used - gas_refund. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Separating per-transaction user gas from block gas could be read as a new dual-accounting mechanism that changes baseline gas results, which would be level 3.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified	1	Whether a transaction is eligible in a block depends on cumulative block gas. That existing condition now uses unrefunded gas. No new validation sequence is introduced.	eip.md · Block Gas Limit Enforcement The sum of unrefunded gas must not exceed the block gas limit, which changes how much gas remains for later transactions. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Block producers must adjust their transaction selection. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The spec does not say whether the pre-execution check (transaction gas limit vs remaining block gas) uses the unrefunded running total.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified	1	The tool's reported block gasUsed result changes meaning (unrefunded sum). That is one semantically changed field with no new mechanism, so level 1.	eip.md · Specification / Block Gas Accounting (Modified) Block gas used is now computed without refunds, so the block-level gasUsed output changes meaning. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: No tool evidence was supplied. If receipts' cumulative gas also changes meaning, or a separate per-transaction block-gas field is needed, more than one field changes (level 2).
New test-framework primitives	1	Expected-header-gas calculations in the framework need a local extension to sum gas before refunds separately from the user charge. No new shared abstraction is required.	eip.md · Test Cases / Transaction Gas vs Block Gas Tests must tell the user-charged gas apart from the block-accounted gas. Confidence: Medium
Security risks	1	The changed invariant is local: block gas limit enforcement and the consistency of header gasUsed. It can be checked through block validity tests.	eip.md · Security Considerations Eliminates DoS vectors that use refunds to exceed block computation limits. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Effects on base-fee dynamics or builders are not specified.
Performance risks	1	Worst-case per-block computation becomes tighter (gross gas is now capped). Benchmarks of refund-heavy blocks should confirm the new bound; no new resource coupling is introduced.	eip.md · Security Considerations Improves predictability of block processing by enforcing stricter limits on computational work. eip.md · Motivation Example block with gross usage of 32.51 MGas against the limit. Confidence: Medium
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	1	There is one boundary-sensitive mechanism: the block gas limit check now applies to unrefunded gas. Its boundary cases are exactly at the limit, and over the limit before refunds but under it after.	eip.md · Block Gas Limit Enforcement The sum of unrefunded gas used by all transactions must not exceed the block gas limit. eip.md · Test Cases / Block Gas Limit Edge Cases Blocks with varying amounts of refundable operations; blocks must not exceed limits through refunds. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: If the per-transaction inclusion check (transaction gas limit vs remaining block gas) is treated as a separate changed boundary, this rises to 2.

Show 18 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	None.	eip.md · Specification No new instructions.
Modified opcodes	No instruction's semantics change.	eip.md · Specification / User Gas Costs (Unchanged) SSTORE semantics and refunds to users are unchanged.
Added precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification No precompiles.
Modified precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification No precompiles.
Added system contracts	None.	eip.md · Specification No contracts introduced.
Modified system contracts	None.	eip.md · Specification No system contracts are referenced.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No instruction changes when it accesses state or charges gas.	eip.md · Specification / Gas Accounting Changes Only block-level refund accounting changes; no opcode's access or charging order is touched.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas rule changes.	eip.md · Specification Only execution gas and refunds are discussed; blob gas is not mentioned.
State gas accounting changes	No state-gas accounting mechanism is added or changed.	eip.md · Specification / Block Gas Accounting (Modified) Storage discounts stay as they are; no state-byte costs or state-gas budget are introduced.
New EVM gas refund	No new refund mechanism. The change only stops refunds from reducing block gas, which belongs under GAS.	eip.md · Specification / User Gas Costs (Unchanged) Users continue to receive existing refunds; no new refund is introduced.
New transaction types	None.	eip.md · Specification No transaction type.
New block / header fields	Changed meaning of an existing field does not count.	eip.md · Specification No new header member; block gas used changes meaning.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	Only the values in existing fields change.	eip.md · Specification No serialized schema changes; existing fields carry new values.
Block syncing changesUnder-specified	No RLP decoding or structural header rule changes. The gas_used check depends on execution, which is an ordinary execution-rule change and is excluded.	eip.md · Block Gas Limit Enforcement The limit check depends on execution results, not on header decoding or structure. Uncertainty: Invalid-block import tests are needed for blocks over the limit before refunds. If that post-execution header check counts as a complex validation rule, the level could be 2.
New fork activation mechanism	No state migration or code installation is needed; the fork only selects the new rule.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Requires a hard fork, but only as a rule switch.
Engine API changesUnder-specified	No Engine API method or field schema change is specified. Only the value the EL puts in the existing payload gasUsed field changes.	eip.md · Specification No Engine API changes are specified. Uncertainty: Treating gasUsed's changed meaning as an Engine API field change would give level 1.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Existing outputs change value but no new output is added. Changed values are counted under PAT.	eip.md · Specification No new receipt, header or log output is defined.
Cryptography	No cryptographic changes.	eip.md · Specification No cryptographic content.

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 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-7778.yaml · sha256 80ef7524bf31

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

The LLM applied checklist revision 3 and the human reviewers revision 1 to EIP-7778 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.

LLM13Medium

Human10Medium

Δ total+3Same tier

Criteria15/23agree 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.

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), Cross-EIP interactions (+2), Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (+1), Transition-tool interface changes (+1)

Show differences only (14 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 instruction's semantics change. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	3	−2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM An existing settlement rule changes: the block gas counter now adds pre-refund gas. User-side refund settlement is unchanged. No new charging mechanism is added, only a changed increment to an existing counter, so level 1. Human This has the potential to affect any tests near the block gas limit that contain refunds.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Coordinated cases are needed with the existing SSTORE refund and discount rules, which the text references without EIP numbers. Tests must separate refunds, which are excluded from block gas, from discounts, which remain. With no candidate EIPs supplied, these interactions are recorded as unidentified. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The tool's reported block gasUsed result changes meaning (unrefunded sum). That is one semantically changed field with no new mechanism, so level 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Any baseline block test whose transactions earn refunds needs new expected header gasUsed values and may need revised block-gas-limit fill boundaries. Affected families include SSTORE clearing and refund tests, other refund-producing paths in the baseline, and block gas limit filling tests. These are localized cases in several families rather than a common rewrite of every family. Human No rationale recorded.
Security risks	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The changed invariant is local: block gas limit enforcement and the consistency of header gasUsed. It can be checked through block validity tests. Human No rationale recorded.
Performance risks	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Worst-case per-block computation becomes tighter (gross gas is now capped). Benchmarks of refund-heavy blocks should confirm the new bound; no new resource coupling is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Edge/boundary conditions	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM There is one boundary-sensitive mechanism: the block gas limit check now applies to unrefunded gas. Its boundary cases are exactly at the limit, and over the limit before refunds but under it after. Human All refunding opcodes need to be tested near the block gas limit.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas rule changes. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new refund mechanism. The change only stops refunds from reducing block gas, which belongs under GAS. 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	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Whether a transaction is eligible in a block depends on cumulative block gas. That existing condition now uses unrefunded gas. No new validation sequence is introduced. Human Technically block validity, but a transaction that could be included previously would make a block invalid after this EIP
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Changed meaning of an existing field does not count. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Only the values in existing fields change. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No RLP decoding or structural header rule changes. The gas_used check depends on execution, which is an ordinary execution-rule change and is excluded. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No state migration or code installation is needed; the fork only selects the new rule. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No Engine API method or field schema change is specified. Only the value the EL puts in the existing payload gasUsed field changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic changes. Human No rationale recorded.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM No instruction changes when it accesses state or charges gas. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM No state-gas accounting mechanism is added or changed. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API encoding changes	n/a	0	—	Only in revision 1	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Existing outputs change value but no new output is added. Changed values are counted under PAT. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	1	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Expected-header-gas calculations in the framework need a local extension to sum gas before refunds separately from the user charge. No new shared abstraction is required. Human No rationale recorded.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Several consensus-visible outcomes are left unresolved and allow competing readings. (a) Whether receipt cumulativeGasUsed, and so the receipts root, uses refunded or unrefunded gas. (b) Whether the pre-execution transaction-limit check against remaining block gas uses unrefunded totals. (c) Whether 'gas_used' means gas before or after any per-transaction gas floor. (d) Whether header gasUsed is the value fed into base-fee adjustment. Clients and specs must agree on these before expected results can be fixed. 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 · 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.