Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7805: Fork-choice enforced Inclusion Lists (FOCIL)

Assessed in Hegotá. The score describes the EIP text available at the snapshot, not the EIP as it stands today.

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-08-25SFI at snapshotLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 20
Human Completescore 15 · Checklist revision 1· merged checklist
Other checklist versions (1)
LLM · Checklist revision 22026-09-11 · Original snapshot · 20Human · Checklist revision 1Complete · 15

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2 · Inclusion status at snapshot: SFI

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer-only assessment of the draft FOCIL proposal at the sealed snapshot. The scored surface is the post-payload inclusion-list satisfaction check, its payload-construction implications, and its Engine API inputs, endpoint, and status. Committee selection, beacon-state containers, consensus fork choice, validator timing, CL gossip/RPC, and BLS signatures are cross-layer context and are not scored as execution-layer complexity.

20MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 6 criteria affected
Plausible range
14–23 (Medium–High)
Snapshot
2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)
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.

Top complexity drivers

  1. Engine API changes3
  2. Security risks3
  3. Performance risks3
  4. Edge/boundary conditions3

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: Material EL details are unresolved: the exact hypothetical transaction validity/affordability predicate, transaction identity and list normalization, and normative Engine API schemas are not defined. The builder timing and optimization are also deferred. These gaps chiefly affect the new side-input/result tooling, boundary matrix, performance/security validation, and cross-client baselining; they are not reused to inflate unrelated gas, opcode, encoding, or transaction-type anchors.

Plausible total

14–23
recorded score 20 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • What exact transaction-validity and balance-affordability rules, including fee components and transaction forms, define validly includable at post-state S?
  • How are transaction presence, duplicates, ordering, and aggregation across multiple committee ILs normalized before the EL check?
  • What are the normative request and response schemas and versioned signatures for getInclusionList, forkchoiceUpdated, and newPayload?
  • Is gas_left tested independently for each missing transaction, and what exact transaction gas value is denoted by T.gas?
  • Which payload-construction algorithm and timing budget are normative rather than implementation guidance?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The text says an unsatisfied block is valid while requiring the EL to return a special status to the CL, leaving the exact Engine API validity/status model unspecified.
  • The phrase nonce and balance checks does not fully specify the hypothetical append-validity predicate for all existing transaction forms.
  • Consensus-layer SignedInclusionList containers and gossip rules provide context but are intentionally excluded from this execution-only score.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7805 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Engine API changes3A new endpoint is introduced alongside changes to multiple existing Engine API endpoints, exactly matching the score-3 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification > Engine API Changes The proposal adds engine_getInclusionListV1, extends engine_forkchoiceUpdated payloadAttributes with an IL, and adds IL transactions plus an INCLUSION_LIST_UNSATISFIED result to engine_newPayload.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Concrete types and versioned method signatures are under-specified, but the number and classes of API changes are explicit enough to fix this score.
Security risksUnder-specified3On the EL surface, correctness spans critical payload execution, state-dependent hypothetical validity, builder construction, and the Engine-API result consumed by fork choice; errors can impair liveness or the intended censorship-resistance guarantee and warrant extensive review and fuzzing.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer; Specification > Engine API Changes Post-state transaction classification produces a new Engine API status that the CL uses to decide whether the otherwise-valid block satisfies ILs.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Consensus Liveness; Security Considerations > Payload Construction Canonical block production depends on builders receiving and satisfying ILs in time, while correct construction must account for interdependent nonce and balance changes among listed transactions.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Consensus gossip, committee behavior, and attester logic are excluded; the score rests on the EL classification and construction boundary alone.
Performance risksUnder-specified3The mechanism interacts continuously with existing payload construction and state changes, cannot be validated solely as an isolated fixed-cost check, and has an explicit quadratic naive path plus latency sensitivity.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Payload Construction Naive payload construction can require O(n^2) validity checks; the proposed mitigation tracks nonce and balance changes of involved EOAs throughout payload construction, including AA-induced balance changes.
  • eip.md · Roles And Participants > Builder The builder must update its payload with collected IL transactions inside a time-sensitive slot workflow, and the exact timing is deferred pending tests and benchmarks.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The optimized algorithm, maximum effective transaction count, and timing budget are not normatively fixed in the package.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3There are multiple boundary-prone mechanisms, and interacting transaction sequences create an elevated combinatorial case set across ordering, validity, state changes, and available gas.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer, steps 1-3 Each listed transaction branches on payload presence, the gas-left boundary, and post-state nonce and balance validity.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Payload Construction Multiple IL transactions can become valid through nonce and balance state changes, producing a naive O(n^2) rechecking pattern and requiring live EOA tracking, including balance changes caused by AA transactions.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Precise validity and list-normalization rules are missing, so the full case matrix is not yet enumerable.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified3A newly observable cross-layer status directly controls attestation, while constructible cases affecting that status lack a unique EL answer. Clients must agree on these details before authoritative vectors can be baselined.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer, steps 1-3 The consensus-relevant INCLUSION_LIST_UNSATISFIED decision is stated in terms of T.gas, T.origin, presence, nonce, and balance without fully defining transaction identity, ordering/duplication handling, or exact validity and affordability calculations across transaction forms.
  • eip.md · Specification > Engine API Changes The endpoint changes are listed without normative request/response types, IL aggregation rules, or versioned signatures for the modified methods.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: This score reflects the sealed Draft text only; prohibited implementation, devnet, discussion, and later-revision information was not consulted.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified2Transition testing requires a new side-input mechanism for the IL set and a distinguishable satisfaction result, which is more than a single ordinary field even though the exact tool schema is not specified.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer; Specification > Engine API Changes Evaluating the new post-state rule requires IL transactions that are not block contents, and produces a distinct INCLUSION_LIST_UNSATISFIED outcome.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP specifies Engine API behavior, not the transition-tool mapping, so the exact number and shape of tool fields remain open.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1A minor, focused subset of pre-existing Engine API and payload-processing tests must be adapted for the added IL input and response path; the EIP does not rework broad EVM or transaction-test categories.
  • eip.md · Specification > Engine API Changes Existing forkchoiceUpdated and newPayload flows are modified to carry IL data, and newPayload can return INCLUSION_LIST_UNSATISFIED.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Exact endpoint schemas and versioning are absent, so the precise count of pre-existing API vectors needing edits is not determined.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified1Existing endpoint and result helpers need minor extension for the new IL input and status, but the package does not establish a reusable permanent framework-level primitive.
  • eip.md · Specification > Engine API Changes Tests must provide IL transactions to modified calls, exercise a new getInclusionList endpoint, and recognize INCLUSION_LIST_UNSATISFIED.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No test-framework design is included, so a dedicated expectation type is possible but not demonstrably required by this snapshot.
Cross-EIP interactions1The identified EIP-7547 relationship is a limited alternative-design interaction requiring compatibility and vector consideration, not a stated dependency. The package also identifies a bounded AA behavior interaction without assigning it an EIP number.
  • eip.md · Rationale > Core Properties > Same-slot FOCIL explicitly contrasts its same-slot constraints with the forward inclusion-list design of EIP-7547 and calls the removed one-slot delay an improvement.
  • supporting/eip-7547.md · Specification > Execution layer EIP-7547 defines overlapping inclusion-list retrieval, forkchoiceUpdated, newPayload, and EL validation surfaces, but with summary and exclusion objects rather than EIP-7805's committee IL input.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Payload Construction The optimization must notice EOA balance changes caused by Account Abstraction transactions, an interaction named without an EIP number.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The proposal does not state coexistence, replacement, or dependency semantics for EIP-7547, so the interaction is kept at the limited score.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7547
Show 19 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The proposed logic runs after payload transactions have executed and defines no EVM instruction or opcode number.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed proposal.
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The new rule is a post-execution payload check and does not change the result or behavior of any existing opcode.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed proposal.
Added precompiles0No precompile is added.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The execution specification adds client-side satisfaction logic and no precompile address, input contract, output, or gas schedule.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed proposal.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer No existing precompile logic or gas accounting is referenced by the post-payload inclusion-list check.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed proposal.
Added system contracts0No new system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The EL feature is specified as a post-payload client check over IL transactions, with no contract address, code, state, or system call.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed proposal.
Modified system contracts0No direct or indirect system-contract modification is specified.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The post-payload check does not invoke, modify, or assign behavior to any pre-existing system contract.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed proposal.
EVM Gas rule changes0Comparing a listed transaction's gas against gas_left is a payload satisfaction condition, not a change to EVM gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer, introductory paragraph and steps 1-3 The new check consumes the already-computed remaining block gas and a transaction gas value; it does not define a new gas charge, schedule, or accounting mechanism.
Uncertainty: No gas-accounting rule change is described in the sealed proposal.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0The new observation is block-level and post-transaction, outside opcode execution, so opcode state-access ordering is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer, introductory paragraph and step 3 Nonce and balance are checked against state S after all payload transactions execute; the proposal does not move an access or gas charge within any opcode.
Uncertainty: None material for this anchor within the execution-layer scope.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer, steps 1-3 The satisfaction algorithm describes transaction presence, remaining execution gas, nonce, and balance only; it specifies no blob-gas rule.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed execution-layer specification.
State gas accounting changes0The proposal does not change state gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer, introductory paragraph and step 3 The EL reads post-payload nonce and balance to classify missing IL transactions; no state-write gas cost, state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill rule is specified.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed execution-layer specification.
New EVM gas refund0No new EVM gas-refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The complete EL algorithm adds an inclusion-satisfaction check and does not introduce refund creation, accrual, or settlement behavior.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed execution-layer specification.
New transaction types0No new transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer; Specification > IL Building Inclusion lists contain transactions selected from the public mempool and the EL checks those transactions; no new transaction envelope is defined.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed proposal.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0The EIP uses transaction-validity information as an input to a new inclusion condition but does not modify transaction-type validity rules.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer, step 3 The new payload-satisfaction decision queries whether a missing existing transaction passes nonce and balance checks against post-state S; it does not redefine those transactions' validity or intrinsic gas.
Uncertainty: The exact subset of validity checks is under-specified; that gap is recorded under cross-client consensus rather than treated as a validity-rule change.
New block / header fields0No execution-layer block or header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification > Engine API Changes ILs are supplied through payloadAttributes and a newPayload parameter; the EIP specifies no new execution payload, block, or block-header field.
Uncertainty: Consensus-layer IL containers are excluded and are not execution block or header fields.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Carrying existing encoded transactions in an IL does not itself introduce an RLP/SSZ encoding change on the execution-layer surface.
  • eip.md · Specification > IL Building The byte cap is measured over RLP-encoded transactions, reusing the transaction encoding; no transaction, execution-block, or Engine API encoding is changed.
Uncertainty: The new Engine API schemas are absent, but no switch of interface encoding is proposed.
Block syncing changes0No block-RLP validation change requiring execution-client sync testing is introduced. Consensus gossip and availability behavior are outside scope.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer; Specification > Engine API Changes FOCIL supplies IL data across Engine API calls and expressly leaves an unsatisfied execution block valid; it adds no execution-block RLP field or RLP validation mechanism.
Uncertainty: The supporting EIP's consensus syncing design is not a syncing rule of EIP-7805 and is not attributed to this anchor.
New fork activation mechanism0Fork scheduling alone is not a new fork-activation mechanism.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal requires a hard fork for consensus-layer validation changes but specifies no activation-block state mutation or modification of an existing internal variable on the EL.
Uncertainty: No special execution-layer activation transition is described.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Tests not exercising FOCIL do not gain a specified additional invariant or universally required assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer; Specification > Engine API Changes The new status is conditional on supplied IL transactions and the EIP states that an unsatisfied block remains valid; it does not prescribe a new assertion for unrelated tests.
Uncertainty: The missing concrete API schema leaves test plumbing open, but no new unrelated-test assertion is stated.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or modified on the execution-layer surface; consensus-layer signature work is excluded from scoring.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer; Specification > Consensus Layer > New containers The execution check uses presence, gas, nonce, and balance; the BLS signature appears only in the consensus-layer SignedInclusionList.
Uncertainty: None material after applying the required layer boundary.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-7805.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 0a3955d9e8 · sha256 81096dd37cab
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/08-hegota-prospective-complexity-assessment/extensions/sfi-cfi-2026-08-26/outputs/assessments/eip-7805.yaml · sha256 d944ac078c13
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-7547.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

15MediumMedium
Evaluator
HumanChecklist v1
Confidence
Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published
2026-01-12
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

  1. Engine API changes3
  2. New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
  3. Transition-tool interface changes2
  4. Security risks2

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7805 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreNotes
Engine API changes32 new engine apis included, 1 modified—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2Need to validate each transation in the IL, but limited in scope and straightforward checks—
Transition-tool interface changes2new field, new mechanism for tx validation, new error—
Security risks2Consensus-critical validations, new economic incentives—
Performance risks2Each transaction not in block requires state access, adding latency to block validation time—
Edge/boundary conditions2Many boundary/edge cases to test, but standard checks—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1"After all of the transactions in the payload have been executed, we check whether any transaction from ILs, that is not already present in the payload, could be validly included...". Additionally, there is further validation for each Transaction in the IL—
Cross-EIP interactions1Interacts with AA—
Show 16 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 1)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreNotes
Added opcodes0No rationale recorded.—
Modified opcodes0No rationale recorded.—
Added precompiles0No rationale recorded.—
Modified precompiles0No rationale recorded.—
Added system contracts0No rationale recorded.—
Modified system contracts0No rationale recorded.—
EVM Gas rule changes0No rationale recorded.—
Blob gas accounting changes0No rationale recorded.—
New EVM gas refund0No rationale recorded.—
New transaction types0No rationale recorded.—
New block / header fields0No rationale recorded.—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No rationale recorded.—
Block syncing changes0No rationale recorded.—
New fork activation mechanism0No rationale recorded.—
Engine API encoding changes0No rationale recorded.—
Cryptography0No rationale recorded.—
Assessment provenance
Rubric
Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator
STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record
Merged checklist ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5 complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7805.md · committed 2026-01-12
blob b452b3c506 · sha256 ed018ce5a7fc
Research record
research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-7805.yaml · sha256 0a29be7f88ae
Compare EIP-7805 with other assessmentsAll Hegotá assessments
Criterion legend and glossary

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

EVM surface

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

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

Gas and accounting

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

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

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

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

Testing impact

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

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

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