Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7840: Add blob schedule to EL config files

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

RetrospectivePrague / PectraAssessment cutoff 2025-01-15Added after 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: 2025-01-15 · da129d4262

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, this informational proposal extended execution-client configuration files with a blobSchedule object mapping forks to target and maximum blob counts. It defined inheritance from the most recently specified fork and a zero-value default when no prior entry exists, motivated by execution-layer consumers such as eth_feeHistory while avoiding a per-block Engine API handshake. It did not specify changes to block or transaction encoding, EVM operations, or contracts.

8LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
3–10 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2025-01-15 · EIP revision da129d4262 (2025-01-15)
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. New fork activation mechanism3
  2. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2
  3. Blob gas accounting changes1
  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 EIP defines the high-level schedule shape and two fallback outcomes but omits normative field types and ranges, malformed or partial-entry behavior, the ordering used to identify the last fork, whether its displayed values are normative, and the full set of consumers. These gaps are localized to configuration interpretation and do not justify projecting unspecified protocol mechanisms into other anchors.

Plausible total

3–10
recorded score 8 · plausible tiers Low

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • Are the Cancun and Prague target/max values normative or merely an example of the object shape?
  • What ordering determines the last specified fork, especially for unknown, duplicate, or out-of-order fork keys?
  • What field types and ranges are valid, and how are missing, partial, malformed, or negative entries handled?
  • Which execution-client activities beyond eth_feeHistory consume target and max, and which consequences must agree across clients?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The specification presents a concrete schedule inside a shape example but does not say whether those numeric values are required.
  • The phrase "last specified fork value" does not define fork ordering or behavior for unrecognized keys.
  • The EIP says execution clients need the values for various activities but identifies only one concrete RPC consumer.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7840 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
New fork activation mechanismUnder-specified3The effective target and maximum are fork-indexed internal configuration values that can change when the current fork changes, matching the binary anchor for internal-variable modification at activation.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 29-43 The example gives different Cancun and Prague target/max values, and effective values are selected for the current fork with inheritance from the last configured fork.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The text describes lookup by current fork rather than an explicit activation-block mutation, so an implementation could derive values on demand.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Clients need localized agreement on configuration parsing and schedule-resolution cases before common tests can be baselined, matching score 2 rather than a pervasive previously unobservable consensus behavior.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The schema gives example entries and two fallback outcomes but no types, ranges, malformed-entry handling, fork ordering rule, or statement that the displayed values are normative.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: It is unclear which schema conventions are inherited from an existing client-configuration standard because none is identified in the package.
Blob gas accounting changesUnder-specified1Moving existing blob target/max parameters to a per-fork schedule updates the existing blob-accounting configuration mechanism but does not introduce a new accounting mechanism.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Motivation, lines 13-22 The proposal makes target and maximum blob counts per block dynamically adjustable by fork through execution-client configuration.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The schedule supplies different Cancun and Prague target/max values and defines how the effective values are inherited or defaulted.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The text does not precisely identify which blob-accounting calculations consume each value or whether the displayed numbers are normative.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified1The proposal introduces one boundary-prone schedule-resolution mechanism with explicit-entry, prior-entry, and no-prior-entry cases.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-43 A missing current-fork entry inherits the last specified fork value, while absence of any prior value yields zero for both fields.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Ordering and malformed or partial-entry behavior are not specified and are tracked as under-specification rather than additional primary mechanisms.
Cross-EIP interactions1The proposal has limited interactions with existing blob-parameter behavior and an RPC consumer but remains independently testable as configuration resolution; the package supplies no interacting EIP number.
  • eip.md · Motivation and Rationale, lines 20-22 and 47-53 The schedule supports changing existing blob target/max values and supplies them to execution-layer activities including eth_feeHistory, while avoiding an Engine API handshake.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The interacting mechanisms are described by function rather than by EIP number, and consumers beyond the single example are unspecified.
Show 23 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The specification contains a configuration schema and no EVM instruction definition.
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The specification contains no change to the result or behavior of an existing opcode.
Added precompiles0No precompile is added.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The configuration-only specification defines no callable precompile.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile behavior or gas accounting is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 No precompile logic or gas schedule appears in the specified change.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-43 The entire specified addition is an execution-client configuration object.
Modified system contracts0No existing system-contract code, state, or behavior is directly or indirectly modified by the specified mechanism.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-43 The proposal only changes how blob target/max values are represented and resolved in client configuration.
EVM Gas rule changes0The configuration schema does not change EVM execution-gas accounting, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-43 The proposal's specified change is a per-fork target/max blob-count object in client configuration files with fallback lookup behavior.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode state-access or gas-charge ordering is changed.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The specification only defines a configuration object and fork-value fallback; it specifies no opcode execution path or state access.
State gas accounting changes0No state-write gas cost, state-gas charging site, budget, reservoir, or spill behavior is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-43 The only configured quantities are per-block target and maximum blob counts.
New EVM gas refund0The proposal introduces no EVM gas-refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The specification is limited to blobSchedule configuration fields and their fallback values.
New transaction types0No transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-43 The proposal is solely about a blob parameter schedule in client configuration files.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Per-block blob target/max configuration does not, as specified, add or modify transaction validity.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The text defines no transaction validity rule or intrinsic-gas calculation.
New block / header fields0The proposal adds no block or block-header field.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The only new fields are target and max nested in a client configuration object.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Adding configuration fields does not switch or modify transaction, block, or Engine API encoding under this anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-40 The proposal adds a JSON-shaped client configuration object, not an encoding change to transactions, blocks, or protocol interfaces.
Block syncing changes0No RLP validation mechanism requiring client syncing is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The change affects client configuration and does not define block RLP fields or block RLP validation.
Engine API changes0The proposal adds neither an Engine API field nor a new Engine API communication mechanism.
  • eip.md · Motivation and Rationale, lines 20-22 and 47-53 The configuration approach is expressly chosen to avoid passing the values through an Engine API handshake every block.
Transition-tool interface changes0A client configuration object is not, on the available text, a modification to the transition-tool interface.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-43 The named interface is the execution-client configuration file; no transition-tool request or response field is specified.
Uncertainty: The proposal does not discuss whether transition tools consume the same configuration schema.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified0The text does not establish that pre-existing execution tests must be reworked; the schedule and fallback can be covered by focused new configuration cases.
  • eip.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility, lines 24-43 and 55-57 The new behavior is a configuration lookup rule, and the proposal reports no backward-compatibility issue or new protocol validation rule.
Uncertainty: The EIP does not say whether existing test configurations embed these client configuration files.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0No new assertion is imposed on tests that are not about this configuration feature.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-43 The proposal defines a client-configuration field and resolution rule, without requiring unrelated tests to assert a new output.
New test-framework primitives0These cases can be expressed with ordinary inputs and expected values; no new expectation, modifier, or reusable framework primitive is required by the text.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The behavior consists of parsing a JSON-shaped schedule and selecting an explicit, inherited, or zero value.
Security risks0The specified configuration and fallback mechanism does not establish a new security-sensitive invariant or chain-security mechanism.
  • eip.md · Rationale and Security Considerations, lines 47-53 and 59-61 The only concrete consumer described is blobGasUsedRatio reporting in eth_feeHistory, and the proposal identifies no security considerations.
Uncertainty: Other execution-client activities needing these values are mentioned but not enumerated, limiting certainty about the impact of inconsistent configuration.
Performance risks0The schedule lookup itself introduces no mechanism that requires performance validation under the anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 24-53 The new operation is configuration lookup, proposed in place of transmitting values over the Engine API every block.
Uncertainty: The proposal does not specify whether the illustrated higher blob limits are normative, so their broader performance effect is not attributed to this configuration EIP.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism or cryptographic functionality is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 24-43 The schedule contains only fork keys and integer target/max blob counts.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@da129d4262 EIPS/eip-7840.md committed 2025-01-15 · information cutoff 2025-01-15T16:25:43Z
Current master · File history · blob 473e81a92a · sha256 97223c1382fc
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/prague/eip-7840.yaml · sha256 4e2e5bec56c2
Compare EIP-7840 with other assessmentsAll Prague / Pectra 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.