Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7823: Set upper bounds for MODEXP

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

RetrospectiveOsaka / FusakaAssessment cutoff 2025-01-23Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 8
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2024-11-26 · b16c055363

Scope at the cutoff. This revision of EIP-7823 adds an upper bound to the MODEXP precompile at address 0x05, which EIP-198 defines. Each of the three declared length fields (length_of_BASE, length_of_EXPONENT, length_of_MODULUS) must be at most 1024 bytes (8192 bits). If any length is larger, the precompile stops, returns an error and consumes all gas. The input format, output format and gas pricing function are otherwise unchanged. The Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations sections are still TODO placeholders.

8LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 1 criterion affected
Plausible range
7–8 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2025-01-23 · EIP revision b16c055363 (2024-11-26)
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

  1. Modified precompiles3
  2. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1
  3. Security risks1
  4. Edge/boundary conditions1

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 Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations sections are TODO. A few details are not stated: when the bound check happens relative to gas computation, whether the bound applies to otherwise trivial calls (e.g. zero modulus length), and the 'bits' wording for the length fields. The surrounding rule supports a single outcome in each case.

Plausible total

7–8
recorded score 8 · plausible tiers Low

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • Does the bound apply even when length_of_MODULUS is 0 or the call would otherwise return trivially?
  • Is the bound checked before or after gas computation? Observable effect is the same (all gas consumed), but traces may differ.
  • How should historical transactions using lengths over 1024 bytes be treated? The EIP marks this as needing analysis.
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The specification says each length input 'MUST be less than or equal to 8192 bits (1024 bytes)'. The parenthetical shows it means the declared byte length, not the 256-bit length field itself.
  • No activation fork is specified in the text; Osaka is assumed from the assessment framing.
  • The Prague baseline gas formula for MODEXP (after EIP-198) is not supplied. Gas expectations for cases at the boundary depend on it.
  • Backwards Compatibility and Security Considerations are TODO placeholders.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7823 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified precompiles3A complex precompile (MODEXP: variable input length, dynamic gas) has a behavior change: new rejection and failure rules. This meets level 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — "If any of these inputs are larger than the limit, the precompile execution stops, returns an error, and consumes all gas." Changes which inputs MODEXP accepts and its failure rules.
  • supporting/eip-198.md · Specification — "Consumes floor(mult_complexity(...)..." MODEXP takes variable-length input and charges dynamic gas, so it is complex under this criterion.
Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1Rework is limited to the boundary/large-length cases in the MODEXP precompile family. Baseline cases with any declared length above 1024 bytes change from success (when affordable) to failure. Ordinary cases with lengths of 1024 bytes or less are unaffected.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "This is a backwards incompatible change" Some inputs that were valid before are now rejected.
  • supporting/eip-198.md · Specification — mult_complexity "else: return x ** 2 // 16 + 480 * x - 199680" The baseline gas branch for lengths above 1024 bytes is reachable by successful calls before the fork. Tests of that branch need new expected results (failure with all gas consumed).
Confidence: High
Security risks1The new validation boundary can be checked locally within the precompile. Fuzzing the length fields at and above the limit is enough, and no other component's assumptions change.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "source of numerous consensus bugs" The new rejection boundary is consensus-critical: clients must agree on the exact limit check, including very large 256-bit length values.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "Needs discussion." No security analysis is supplied.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Contracts that depend on MODEXP inputs over 1024 bytes would break. This is an application-level concern and the EIP has not analyzed it.
Edge/boundary conditions1Exactly one boundary-sensitive mechanism is introduced: the per-field length limit. Its dimensions are which field exceeds the limit, the value sizes (1024/1025/very large), and interaction with available gas and calldata padding. It is still a single mechanism, so level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification — "MUST be less than or equal to 8192 bits (1024 bytes)" Adds one boundary rule (≤1024 bytes) that applies to each of the three length fields.
  • supporting/eip-198.md · Specification — "every length is a 32-byte left-padded integer" Length values can range up to 2^256-1, so boundary tests cover 1024, 1025, and very large values, including values beyond 64-bit range.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The three fields could be treated as separate mechanisms, but they share one rule.
Cross-EIP interactions1The interaction with EIP-198 needs only local compatibility checks within the precompile's own tests: the bound with right-padding, length-field parsing, and the gas formula's >1024 branch. No coordinated multi-EIP scenarios are needed.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Recap from EIP-198" The target modifies the precompile defined by EIP-198.
  • supporting/eip-198.md · Specification — "Call data is assumed to be infinitely right-padded" The bound applies to declared lengths. These lengths must be checked together with EIP-198's padding and parsing semantics.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Later MODEXP gas repricing in the baseline is not in the supplied documents.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-198
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1Some details are not stated: whether the bound applies when other lengths make the call trivial (e.g. modulus length 0), and when the check happens relative to gas calculation. However, the rule "any length > 1024 → fail, consume all gas" supports a single outcome. Localized, level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification — "each of the length inputs ... MUST be less than or equal to 8192 bits (1024 bytes)" The wording applies the bound to the 'length inputs' in bits, but the parenthetical makes clear it limits the declared byte length.
  • eip.md · Specification — "execution stops, returns an error, and consumes all gas" The ordering of the bound check against gas computation is not stated. Both paths consume all gas, so the observable outcome is the same.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The baseline Prague gas formula (later repricing) is not in the packet, but this does not affect the bound's outcome.
Show 22 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new instructions.
  • eip.md · Rationale — EVMMAX EVMMAX is mentioned only as a possible future feature; no opcode is added.
Modified opcodes0Changed precompile behavior reached through an unchanged instruction does not count.
  • eip.md · Specification Only the callee precompile's behavior changes; the CALL-family semantics are unchanged.
Added precompiles0No new precompile.
  • eip.md · Specification The existing MODEXP precompile at 0x05 is modified; no new address is added.
Added system contracts0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts0No system contract changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only a native precompile is affected.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas accounting rule or parameter changes. Calls that previously succeeded with oversized lengths now consume all gas through the existing failure mechanism. That is a precompile behavior change and is scored under ~PC.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "we don't suggest to rework the pricing function" The EIP explicitly leaves the MODEXP pricing function unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification — "returns an error, and consumes all gas" Oversized inputs use the existing precompile failure mode of consuming all forwarded gas; no new accounting rule is added.
Uncertainty: Some readers might count the change in gas outcome for previously affordable oversized calls as a level-1 gas change. Here it is attributed to the precompile's changed failure rule.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0Precompile internals change, but no instruction's own state-access or gas-charge sequence changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only the precompile's internal input validation changes; no instruction's access or charge ordering changes.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob gas changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No blob-related rules are mentioned.
State gas accounting changes0No state gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-writing cost rules are mentioned.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund is introduced.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Precompile outputs and failures are excluded from this criterion.
  • eip.md · Specification A precompile failure is an execution outcome, not a transaction-validity rule.
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header field is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Precompile calldata is not a listed schema.
  • eip.md · Specification Only the precompile's calldata interpretation is affected; no listed serialized object changes.
Block syncing changes0Only an execution rule changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No block decoding or structural validation change.
New fork activation mechanism0Only fork-gated rule selection is needed.
  • eip.md · Specification A rule change only; no state migration or code installation.
Engine API changes0No Engine API field or endpoint changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API changes.
Transition-tool interface changes0No interface change is required beyond ordinary fork selection.
  • eip.md · Specification The change is internal to the precompile; no t8n input or output is affected.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no new assertions.
  • eip.md · Specification No new output, log, header or receipt field is introduced.
New test-framework primitives0Existing precompile-call test primitives are enough. New parameter values are not new primitives.
  • eip.md · Specification The tests are ordinary precompile calls with chosen length fields and gas, checking success or failure and gas used.
Performance risks0Tightening the input space adds no new workload and does not change the resource assumptions behind pricing. Inputs at the 1024-byte boundary were already allowed in the baseline.
  • eip.md · Rationale — Limit The bound tightens the input space and leaves pricing unchanged, so no new or larger workload is enabled.
Uncertainty: Benchmarks for future repricing are mentioned only as a possibility and are not part of this EIP.
Cryptography0No cryptographic verification, signing, hashing or proof rule changes. The arithmetic primitive itself is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification — "upper bound to the inputs" Only an input-length bound is added; the modular exponentiation arithmetic is unchanged.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@b16c055363 EIPS/eip-7823.md committed 2024-11-26 · information cutoff 2025-01-23T23:05:03Z
Current master · File history · blob cf60d90b49 · sha256 deefcee9cba6
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/osaka/eip-7823.yaml · sha256 5fef5ba59d0f
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-198.md
Compare EIP-7823 with other assessmentsAll Osaka / Fusaka 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 · 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 · 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.

  • 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 · 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.