EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7825: Transaction Gas Limit Cap

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 2025-02-21Included 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: 2026-08-21 · Spec revision: 2024-12-02 · 8096a3a13a

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, this draft proposed a protocol-wide maximum declared transaction gasLimit of 30,000,000, independent of the block gas limit. A transaction above the cap would be excluded during transaction-pool validation, and a block containing one would be invalid before processing. The proposal did not change EVM gas prices or accounting, transaction encoding, opcodes, or block fields.

8LowLow

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range: 7–9 (Low)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-02-21 · EIP revision 8096a3a13a (2024-12-02)

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

New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
Security risks2
Block syncing changes1
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: The central >30,000,000 block-validity predicate is testable as written, but the draft is not fully normative about fork activation, whether its broad wording covers every transaction form without exception, or whether references to gas usage are exclusively references to the declared gasLimit. Its proposed pool error code is only an example. These gaps are material to finalizing the test matrix but are localized and do not obscure the primary validity rule.

Plausible total

7–9
recorded score 8 · plausible tiers Low

Affected criteria (3)

New or modified transaction validity mechanisms (2)
Block syncing changes (1)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (1)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

What exact fork activation condition makes the new transaction and block rule effective?
Does "any single transaction" cover every transaction form carrying a gasLimit, with no protocol-level exceptions?
Are the abstract's references to maximum gas usage intended solely as checks of the sender-declared gasLimit, as the concrete validation clauses state?
Is any exact transaction-pool error code normative, or is only rejection required?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The abstract describes a cap on gas usage, while the normative checks compare the declared gasLimit; the assessment follows the concrete gasLimit rule.
The phrase "appropriate error code" is followed by an example rather than a required code, leaving transaction-pool error reporting non-normative.
No explicit activation clause or exhaustive transaction-scope definition appears in the historical draft.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7825 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified	2	This is a new validity rule for existing transactions: values above the cap are rejected at pool admission and make a containing block invalid. It changes affected existing cases but is a single comparison requiring limited vector updates rather than testing-infrastructure redesign.	eip.md · Gas Cap and Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 33-42 This is a new validity rule for existing transactions: values above the cap are rejected at pool admission and make a containing block invalid. It changes affected existing cases but is a single comparison requiring limited vector updates rather than testing-infrastructure redesign. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 61-63 This is a new validity rule for existing transactions: values above the cap are rejected at pool admission and make a containing block invalid. It changes affected existing cases but is a single comparison requiring limited vector updates rather than testing-infrastructure redesign. Confidence: High
Security risks	2	The consensus-critical cap touches the limited components of transaction admission and block acceptance. An inconsistent comparison or application could cause acceptance divergence, so targeted boundary review and fuzzing are warranted, while the rule has no broad interaction with EVM execution.	eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 39-42 The consensus-critical cap touches the limited components of transaction admission and block acceptance. An inconsistent comparison or application could cause acceptance divergence, so targeted boundary review and fuzzing are warranted, while the rule has no broad interaction with EVM execution. eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 65-69 The consensus-critical cap touches the limited components of transaction admission and block acceptance. An inconsistent comparison or application could cause acceptance divergence, so targeted boundary review and fuzzing are warranted, while the rule has no broad interaction with EVM execution. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The EIP discusses intended DoS mitigation but does not analyze failure modes of inconsistent client enforcement.
Block syncing changesUnder-specified	1	Block import or syncing gains one simple validation rule: reject a block when any contained transaction declares a gasLimit above the cap. The check uses an existing transaction field and does not change its encoding.	eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 39-42 Block import or syncing gains one simple validation rule: reject a block when any contained transaction declares a gasLimit above the cap. The check uses an existing transaction field and does not change its encoding. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The EIP calls this block validation rather than specifically RLP validation, so the rubric's block-RLP boundary admits a score of 0 interpretation.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	A minor subset of existing transaction and block-validity cases using gasLimit values above 30,000,000 changes from accepted to rejected. The EIP says values below the cap remain unaffected and expects only minimal practical impact.	eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 39-42 A minor subset of existing transaction and block-validity cases using gasLimit values above 30,000,000 changes from accepted to rejected. The EIP says values below the cap remain unaffected and expects only minimal practical impact. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 61-63 A minor subset of existing transaction and block-validity cases using gasLimit values above 30,000,000 changes from accepted to rejected. The EIP says values below the cap remain unaffected and expects only minimal practical impact. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package contains no historical test inventory, so the exact number of pre-existing vectors above the cap is not established.
Edge/boundary conditions	1	The EIP introduces one sharp numeric boundary: 30,000,000 is permitted while a gasLimit greater than 30,000,000 is rejected, in both admission and block validation contexts.	eip.md · Gas Cap, lines 33-37 The EIP introduces one sharp numeric boundary: 30,000,000 is permitted while a gasLimit greater than 30,000,000 is rejected, in both admission and block validation contexts. eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 39-42 The EIP introduces one sharp numeric boundary: 30,000,000 is permitted while a gasLimit greater than 30,000,000 is rejected, in both admission and block validation contexts. Confidence: High
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	1	The concrete greater-than comparison determines the central block-consensus boundary, but the short draft leaves a few details implicit: whether every use of "gas usage" means declared gasLimit, the exhaustive transaction scope, and activation. These have an obvious intended reading rather than requiring a new consensus mechanism to be designed.	eip.md · Abstract, lines 13-15 The concrete greater-than comparison determines the central block-consensus boundary, but the short draft leaves a few details implicit: whether every use of "gas usage" means declared gasLimit, the exhaustive transaction scope, and activation. These have an obvious intended reading rather than requiring a new consensus mechanism to be designed. eip.md · Gas Cap and Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 33-42 The concrete greater-than comparison determines the central block-consensus boundary, but the short draft leaves a few details implicit: whether every use of "gas usage" means declared gasLimit, the exhaustive transaction scope, and activation. These have an obvious intended reading rather than requiring a new consensus mechanism to be designed. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The suggested error code is explicitly only an example and appears to concern local admission rather than the block-consensus result; it is not treated as an additional consensus ambiguity.

Show 22 zero-score criteria

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@8096a3a13a EIPS/eip-7825.md committed 2024-12-02 · information cutoff 2025-02-21T01:11:23Z
Current master · File history · blob 47cbfed315 · sha256 d8c7ec66e85f
Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/05-retrospective-complexity-assignment/outputs/fork-eips/osaka/eip-7825.yaml · sha256 989cded1e71c

Compare EIP-7825 with other assessments All 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.

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

Gas and accounting

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

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

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

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

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

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

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

Testing impact

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

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

Risk and validation

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

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

Coordination

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

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

Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is introduced.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 No opcode is introduced.
Modified opcodes	Despite the heading, the described behavior changes only transaction and block validation; no pre-existing opcode result or behavior changes.	eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 39-42 Despite the heading, the described behavior changes only transaction and block validation; no pre-existing opcode result or behavior changes.
Added precompiles	No precompile is introduced.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 No precompile is introduced.
Modified precompiles	No precompile logic or gas schedule is modified.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 No precompile logic or gas schedule is modified.
Added system contracts	The validation cap introduces no system contract.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The validation cap introduces no system contract.
Modified system contracts	The proposal neither modifies a system contract nor describes an indirect behavioral effect on one.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The proposal neither modifies a system contract nor describes an indirect behavioral effect on one.
EVM Gas rule changes	The proposal adds a validity ceiling on the transaction's declared gasLimit; it does not alter an EVM gas charge, cost schedule, or accounting mechanism.	eip.md · Gas Cap and Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 31-47 The proposal adds a validity ceiling on the transaction's declared gasLimit; it does not alter an EVM gas charge, cost schedule, or accounting mechanism.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	The specified checks occur at transaction-pool and block validation and do not move any state access or gas charge within opcode execution.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The specified checks occur at transaction-pool and block validation and do not move any state access or gas charge within opcode execution.
Blob gas accounting changes	The cap concerns the ordinary transaction gasLimit and specifies no blob-gas accounting change.	eip.md · Gas Cap, lines 33-37 The cap concerns the ordinary transaction gasLimit and specifies no blob-gas accounting change.
State gas accounting changes	No state-writing charge, state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill interaction is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 No state-writing charge, state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill interaction is introduced or modified.
New EVM gas refund	The proposal contains no gas-refund mechanism or refund-rule change.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The proposal contains no gas-refund mechanism or refund-rule change.
New transaction types	The cap applies a validation rule to transactions and does not define a new transaction type.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The cap applies a validation rule to transactions and does not define a new transaction type.
New block / header fields	The existing block gas limit remains independent of the transaction cap, and no new block or header field is added.	eip.md · Protocol Adjustment, lines 44-47 The existing block gas limit remains independent of the transaction cap, and no new block or header field is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	The proposal constrains the value of the existing gasLimit field but does not alter transaction, block, or interface encoding.	eip.md · Gas Cap and Protocol Adjustment, lines 33-47 The proposal constrains the value of the existing gasLimit field but does not alter transaction, block, or interface encoding.
New fork activation mechanism	The proposal specifies no state or internal-variable modification at the fork activation block.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The proposal specifies no state or internal-variable modification at the fork activation block. Uncertainty: The historical draft does not state its activation mechanics, but nothing in its described rule calls for the kind of activation-block mutation scored by this anchor.
Engine API changes	No Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism is specified.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 No Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism is specified.
Transition-tool interface changes	Validation uses the existing transaction gasLimit value and requires no new transition-tool field or interface mechanism.	eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior and Protocol Adjustment, lines 39-47 Validation uses the existing transaction gasLimit value and requires no new transition-tool field or interface mechanism.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	The cap changes the expected validity of affected cases; it does not produce a new value or invariant that unrelated pre-existing tests must additionally assert.	eip.md · Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 39-42 The cap changes the expected validity of affected cases; it does not produce a new value or invariant that unrelated pre-existing tests must additionally assert.
New test-framework primitives	A scalar boundary check and invalid-transaction or invalid-block expectations can be expressed with ordinary test cases; the proposal identifies no need for new framework abstractions.	eip.md · Gas Cap and Changes to EVM Behavior, lines 33-42 A scalar boundary check and invalid-transaction or invalid-block expectations can be expressed with ordinary test cases; the proposal identifies no need for new framework abstractions.
Performance risks	The new operation is a fixed scalar validation check and does not itself require performance validation. The stated performance effects are reduced worst-case transaction load and more predictable block verification, not a new performance mechanism or risk.	eip.md · Abstract and Motivation, lines 13-29 The new operation is a fixed scalar validation check and does not itself require performance validation. The stated performance effects are reduced worst-case transaction load and more predictable block verification, not a new performance mechanism or risk. eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 65-69 The new operation is a fixed scalar validation check and does not itself require performance validation. The stated performance effects are reduced worst-case transaction load and more predictable block verification, not a new performance mechanism or risk. Uncertainty: The text motivates the numerical cap with performance concerns but supplies no benchmark methodology for validating the selected value.
Cryptography	The transaction gas-limit comparison introduces no cryptography.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The transaction gas-limit comparison introduces no cryptography.
Cross-EIP interactions	The sealed historical text names no other EIP and specifies no dependency, modification, or conflict requiring coordinated cross-EIP testing.	eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 31-58 The sealed historical text names no other EIP and specifies no dependency, modification, or conflict requiring coordinated cross-EIP testing.