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 4
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. This revision of EIP-7840 is an Informational EIP. It adds a `blobSchedule` object to execution-client configuration files that gives a `target` and `max` blob count per block for each named fork. Its example lists Cancun as 3/6 and Prague as 6/9. If the current fork has no entry, clients use the last specified fork's values; if no fork has an entry, both values are zero. The stated motivation is to make the blob parameters adjustable while avoiding an Engine API handshake. The rationale gives eth_feeHistory's blobGasUsedRatio as an example of EL use and says the core protocol does not specifically need the max.

4LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 7 criteria affected
Plausible range
2–10 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2025-01-15 · EIP revision da129d4262 (2025-01-15)
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. Transition-tool interface changes1
  2. New test-framework primitives1
  3. Cross-EIP interactions1
  4. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus1

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 specifies a configuration format and a fallback rule. It does not say whether execution clients must use the configured target/max for consensus computations (excess blob gas, blob-count validity) or only for RPC. It also leaves unstated how the 'current fork' is determined, and what happens when configured values conflict with protocol constants or with the CL.

Plausible total

2–10
recorded score 4 · plausible tiers Low

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • Must EL consensus (excess blob gas calculation, max blob validation) read target/max from blobSchedule, or only RPC methods?
  • How is the 'current fork' keyed: by fork name, or by an activation timestamp from elsewhere in the config?
  • Is the zero fallback before Cancun consensus-relevant, and how should it interact with pre-Cancun blocks?
  • Must the transition tool or test fixtures carry blobSchedule, or can they derive it from the fork?
  • What should a client do if the configured values disagree with hardcoded fork constants or with the CL's values?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The EIP is Informational and specifies only a configuration format. Its effect on consensus depends on how clients consume the values, which is not stated.
  • The Prague values (6/9) in the example come from an unsupplied EIP. Any capacity change is attributed to that EIP, not to EIP-7840.
  • No base fee update fraction or other blob-pricing parameter appears in the schedule, so it is unclear whether target/max alone are enough for every EL use.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7840 Prague / Pectra: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified1If clients read target/max from configuration, the state-transition tool's chain-configuration input may need one new semantic field (the blob schedule) so that execution matches the fixture. No new exchange mechanism is needed. This is scored at level 1, but it is not certain.
  • eip.md · Abstract - "Add a new object to client configuration files `blobSchedule`" Client configuration gains a new semantic object holding per-fork target/max.
  • eip.md · Motivation - "dynamically adjust the target and max blob counts" The values are meant to be configurable rather than fixed constants, so a tool that executes blocks may need to receive them.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: The EIP does not mention the transition tool. The tool might instead derive the values from the fork name, which would mean level 0. No tool evidence is supplied.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified1Fixture and genesis-config generation needs a local extension to produce blobSchedule for each fork, including fallback cases. This extends an existing kind of primitive (chain config) and does not add a new abstraction.
  • eip.md · Specification - "Extend the client configuration files with the object `blobSchedule`" Generated client configurations (genesis/chain config) would need to emit the new object.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: How much is needed depends on whether test clients require the object. If they derive the values from fork rules, nothing may be needed.
Cross-EIP interactions1Only local compatibility checks are needed: the configured values per fork must agree with the blob-gas parameters defined elsewhere, and RPC outputs must use the correct max. No coordinated multi-EIP scenarios are established.
  • eip.md · Specification - cancun target 3 max 6; prague target 6 max 9 The schedule must match the blob parameters defined by the Cancun blob mechanism and by a Prague blob-count change, neither of which is named or supplied.
  • eip.md · Rationale - "eth_feeHistory ... blobGasUsedRatio" The configured max is used by an RPC output tied to the blob mechanism.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: The interacting EIPs (the blob-transaction mechanism and the Prague blob-count increase) are not named or supplied.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1It is left out whether the configured target/max feed consensus computations or only RPC outputs such as blobGasUsedRatio. With values that match the protocol, the surrounding text supports a single intended outcome, so this is a localized omission rather than competing consensus outcomes.
  • eip.md · Rationale - "execution clients need these values for various activities" Does not say whether EL consensus checks (excess blob gas, max blobs per block) must use the configured values or only RPC.
  • eip.md · Specification - "If no last value is specified, set both to zero" The fallback behavior is specified, but its consensus effect is not.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: If clients disagree on whether consensus uses the config (for example, under the zero fallback or a non-matching config), the issue could rise to level 2. How the 'current fork' is identified (by name or timestamp) is also unstated.
Show 24 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No new instructions.
Modified opcodes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction semantics change.
Added precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles.
Modified precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile changes.
Added system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No contracts are introduced.
Modified system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are referenced.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas charging, metering or settlement rule is introduced or changed.
  • eip.md · Specification Only a configuration object is specified; it does not change any execution-gas rule.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No opcode or state-access behavior is mentioned.
Blob gas accounting changesUnder-specified0The EIP sets out a configuration format. It does not change blob-gas pricing, excess-blob-gas computation or limits. The Prague 6/9 example values would come from a separate parameter-change proposal, which is not supplied here.
  • eip.md · Specification - "blobSchedule" Defines where target and max blob counts are configured, not how blob gas is computed.
  • eip.md · Rationale - "the core protocol doesn't specifically need such value" Presents the max as needed for RPC use, not as an accounting change.
Uncertainty: The text does not say whether clients must take the consensus target/max (used for excess blob gas and block blob limits) from this config. If they do, configured values could change accounting. Prague values that differ from Cancun belong to an unsupplied EIP.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting rule changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-gas accounting is mentioned.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is described.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction envelope is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified0No transaction-validity rule changes are specified. Values that match the protocol leave blob-count validity unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction-validity rules are stated.
Uncertainty: If the configured max drives the per-block or per-transaction blob limit, the configuration becomes a parameter source for an existing check (at most level 1).
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header member is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Client configuration files are not a listed protocol serialization interface.
  • eip.md · Specification - JSON blobSchedule object The only schema change is to a local client configuration file. That is not one of the template's listed protocol objects (transactions, blocks, receipts, Engine API, peer messages).
Block syncing changes0No RLP decoding or structural validation changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No block decoding or structural validation rule is changed.
New fork activation mechanism0Choosing parameters by fork is excluded from this criterion. No state migration is required.
  • eip.md · Specification - "When there is no explicit configuration for the current fork" Selecting values per fork is rule/constant selection, not a state transition.
Engine API changes0Engine API changes are explicitly avoided.
  • eip.md · Motivation - "avoid complex handshake over engine API" The configuration approach is explicitly chosen instead of an Engine API change.
  • eip.md · Rationale - "Passing this value over the engine API every block seem overkill" Confirms there is no Engine API field.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0With configured values that match the protocol parameters, baseline test inputs and expected results are unchanged. Any test configuration or genesis plumbing falls under framework or interface criteria.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility - "No backward compatibility issues found." The EIP claims no behavioral change for existing behavior.
  • eip.md · Specification - "cancun": target 3, max 6 The Cancun values in the example match the baseline parameters.
Uncertainty: If baseline fixtures' genesis configs must include blobSchedule for clients to run, that configuration plumbing might be counted as rework.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0No new output needs asserting in baseline tests.
  • eip.md · Specification No new header, receipt or log output is introduced.
Security risksUnder-specified0No protocol validation boundary changes. A misconfiguration or EL/CL mismatch is an operational concern and is not established as a protocol invariant by the text.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations - "No security considerations found." No security boundaries are claimed.
Uncertainty: If ELs use configured values for consensus, a config that differs from the CL could split the chain. Validating consistency would be a local check (level 1).
Performance risks0Any capacity changes (for example, Prague 6/9) would belong to the EIP that sets those values, not to the configuration format.
  • eip.md · Specification No new workload or resource bound is introduced by this EIP.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified0The fallback rule decides how configuration is resolved when entries are missing. It is not a consensus rule with boundary-sensitive protocol outcomes. If the configured values match the protocol constants, no new protocol boundary is established.
  • eip.md · Specification - "use the last specified fork value. If no last value is specified, set both to zero" Defines a rule for resolving configuration when a fork has no entry.
Uncertainty: If the fallback values feed consensus checks (for example, zero max before Cancun, or an inherited max for a fork with no entry), testing the fallback resolution becomes one boundary-sensitive mechanism (level 1).
Cryptography0No cryptographic changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No cryptographic content.
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 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/prague/eip-7840.yaml · sha256 d7add1d91b7e
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 · 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.