EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7843: SLOTNUM opcode

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

RetrospectiveAmsterdam / GlamsterdamAssessment cutoff 2025-06-09Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 23

Human Completescore 7 · Checklist revision 1· merged checklist

LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-25 · Primary study score · 23 LLM · Checklist revision 12026-08-25 · Re-run for the human comparison · 17 Human · Checklist revision 1Complete · 7 CompareHuman vs LLM · same checklist revision

Evaluated on: 2026-08-25 · Spec revision: 2025-05-20 · 0aefdc9d5a

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, EIP-7843 was a Draft proposal for a new fixed-cost SLOTNUM opcode at 0x4b that returns the current block's slot number as an eight-byte unsigned value. The slot number was to be calculated by the consensus layer, carried to the execution layer through the Engine API, committed in a new uint64 block-header field, and supplied in a new uint64 PayloadAttributes field. The proposal presented EIP-4788 proof-based access as an existing but more expensive alternative, and it supplied no test cases or substantive security analysis.

23HighHigh

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 9 criteria affected
Plausible range: 20–28 (Medium–High)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-06-09 · EIP revision 0aefdc9d5a (2025-05-20)

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.

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: Material details of the new consensus value's complete path are unresolved: the header field's exact position and canonical encoding, its representation in payload validation and Engine API messages beyond PayloadAttributes, the rule by which execution clients validate the consensus-computed value, and the mapping of the stated eight-byte value into an EVM stack word. These omissions affect the size of the interface, syncing, regression-test, and security work without changing the explicit existence of the opcode or header field.

Plausible total

20–28
recorded score 23 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Affected criteria (9)

Block syncing changes (1)
Engine API changes (1)
Transition-tool interface changes (1)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (3)
New invariant on pre-existing tests (2)
New test-framework primitives (1)
Security risks (2)
Edge/boundary conditions (1)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

Where in the header is slot_number placed, and what is its exact canonical RLP encoding and validation rule?
Which Engine API payload or endpoint objects, in addition to PayloadAttributes, carry slot_number during block production and validation?
From which value does a validating execution client derive or obtain slot_number, and what mismatch makes a payload invalid?
How is the eight-byte big-endian SlotNumber represented in the 256-bit EVM stack word, and what happens at or beyond the uint64 limit?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)

The historical text says to extend the header encoding but does not place the new field within the header or define its canonical encoded form.
PayloadAttributes gains slot_number, but the proposal does not specify the corresponding payload-delivery and validation-side Engine API changes.
The output is called an eight-byte big-endian value even though an EVM stack element is wider, leaving the normative stack representation implicit.
Test Cases is N/A and Security Considerations is None, leaving the intended regression and cross-layer consistency rules undocumented.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7843 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
New block / header fields	3	The introduction of a new block-header field directly triggers the rubric's binary score-3 anchor.	eip.md · Header extension, lines 51-53 The proposal mandates a new slot_number field of type uint64 in the block-header encoding. Confidence: High
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	3	A block-header encoding change directly triggers the rubric's binary score-3 anchor.	eip.md · Header extension, lines 51-53 The proposal explicitly requires the header encoding to be extended with a uint64 slot_number field. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The existence of the encoding change is explicit, although its exact field placement and canonical encoding are not.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	3	A mandatory post-fork header-schema change plus an Engine API input change requires existing block, payload, syncing, and execution-test paths to construct and carry the new field. That reaches diverse categories rather than a narrow contrived subset, matching the major-subset anchor.	eip.md · Specification — RPC changes, lines 47-57 The proposal transports slot_number across the consensus/execution boundary and extends both the block-header encoding and PayloadAttributes. eip.md · Test Cases, lines 77-79 The historical proposal supplies no test cases that narrow or demonstrate the required regression updates. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The proposal does not describe the historical test infrastructure, so the exact amount of mechanical versus hand-authored rework is not determined.
New invariant on pre-existing testsUnder-specified	2	A broad category of post-fork block and payload tests gains a mechanical consistency assertion for slot_number, but the text does not establish that every test type or pre-fork vector must gain that assertion.	eip.md · Header extension and PayloadAttributes change, lines 51-57 Post-fork payload and block representations gain a slot_number that must be propagated consistently even when a test is about unrelated execution behavior. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The proposal does not specify which test formats assert header fields or whether any harness derives the field automatically.
Security risksUnder-specified	2	Incorrect propagation or validation could make a consensus-derived opcode value disagree across block construction, validation, and execution. The mechanism touches a limited set of critical components and warrants targeted cross-layer review, but the proposal does not establish the broad, substantial invariant changes required for score 3.	eip.md · RPC changes, lines 47-57 A consensus-layer-calculated value is transported through the Engine API, committed in the execution header, and exposed to EVM execution. eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 81-83 The historical proposal states that there are no security considerations and provides no analysis of cross-layer consistency or validation. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The missing payload-validation rule makes the precise security surface and ownership of consistency checks unclear.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Clients need agreement on localized consensus details before baselining tests: the header field's exact encoding position, how validating execution clients receive or check slot_number, and how the eight-byte value maps to a 256-bit EVM stack item. These are localized to the new slot-number path rather than a wholesale newly observable class of behavior.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-57 The text specifies the opcode, an eight-byte big-endian output, a header field, and one PayloadAttributes field, but does not give exact header placement or the full block-building and validation data flow. eip.md · Test Cases and Security Considerations, lines 77-83 No test cases or security discussion resolve the missing details. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Some omissions have an apparent intended reading, but the proposal does not select those readings normatively.
Added opcodes	1	This is one simple opcode: it has no data portion, no complex stack mechanics, and a constant gas cost.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-45 One opcode, SLOTNUM at 0x4b, returns one stack element and has a fixed gas fee of 2. Confidence: High
EVM Gas rule changes	1	Adding SLOTNUM to the existing constant-cost base-opcode schedule updates an existing gas-accounting mechanism; it does not introduce dynamic metering or affect an existing opcode's gas rule.	eip.md · Gas Cost, lines 43-45 SLOTNUM is assigned a fixed gas fee of 2. eip.md · Rationale — Gas Price, lines 61-63 The fee is chosen to match similar opcodes in the existing W_base set. Confidence: High
Block syncing changesUnder-specified	1	One additional header field creates a single simple RLP/schema validation change for imported blocks, matching the score-1 anchor.	eip.md · Header extension, lines 51-53 The block-header encoding is extended with one uint64 slot_number field. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The field's exact header position, canonical encoding details, and validation rule are not specified.
Engine API changesUnder-specified	1	The historical text explicitly adds a single field to an existing Engine API object, matching the score-1 anchor.	eip.md · RPC changes and PayloadAttributes change, lines 47-57 The slot number is passed from consensus to execution through the Engine API, with one explicit new uint64 slot_number field in PayloadAttributes. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The proposal does not say whether ExecutionPayload, newPayload, forkchoiceUpdated, or versioned endpoint schemas also require changes.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified	1	A transition tool must receive one slot_number context field so it can execute the opcode and form the extended header, matching the single-new-field anchor.	eip.md · Specification, lines 31-45 Execution of SLOTNUM requires one new current-block input value and produces the slot number on the EVM stack. eip.md · RPC changes, lines 47-57 The slot number is a single uint64 value carried into execution and added to PayloadAttributes. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The transition-tool interface is not named in the proposal, and the missing validation flow could ultimately require more than one representation of the value.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified	1	Existing opcode-test and block-test primitives remain applicable, but their environment and header builders need a minor slot_number extension. The text provides no basis for a new reusable expectation or modifier primitive.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-57 The feature adds a block-context opcode and extends header and PayloadAttributes data models with slot_number. eip.md · Test Cases, lines 77-79 No feature-specific testing abstractions or cases are supplied. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Because no tests are described, it is unclear whether an existing generic block-context field mechanism would make the framework change unnecessary.
Performance risks	1	The new context read and metadata transport can be benchmarked in isolation and are not specified to alter existing performance behavior, matching the score-1 anchor.	eip.md · Rationale — ZK-VM proving, lines 69-71 The proposal characterizes SLOTNUM as similar to TIMESTAMP, says proving complexity should not increase, and keeps the value in the self-contained block header. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The proposal gives an expectation rather than benchmark evidence and does not quantify header or Engine API overhead.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	1	The fixed-width slot-number path is one boundary-prone mechanism, requiring at least zero and uint64-limit representation cases across the API, header, and stack. It does not introduce multiple independently complex boundary mechanisms.	eip.md · Output and RPC changes, lines 33-57 The same slot number crosses an eight-byte big-endian stack-output description, a uint64 header field, and a uint64 PayloadAttributes field. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The text does not state overflow handling or precisely define how the eight-byte value occupies an EVM stack word.

Show 14 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes	No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-45 The proposal allocates a new opcode at 0x4b and does not change or deprecate the behavior of any existing opcode.
Added precompiles	No precompile is added.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-15 and 29-45 The execution feature is expressly a new opcode; no precompile address or precompile behavior is introduced.
Modified precompiles	No pre-existing precompile is modified.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-57 The specified opcode and metadata changes do not mention or alter any existing precompile's logic or gas schedule.
Added system contracts	No new system contract is introduced.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-15 and 29-57 The feature consists of an opcode and cross-layer/header fields; no contract deployment or system action is proposed.
Modified system contracts	EIP-7843 neither changes the EIP-4788 system contract's code or state nor specifies any indirect protocol behavior for that contract.	eip.md · Motivation, lines 19-27 EIP-4788 is described only as an existing proof-based alternative to obtaining the slot number. supporting/eip-4788.md · Abstract, lines 14-18 EIP-4788 exposes beacon roots and stores them in a contract, functionality that EIP-7843 does not amend.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	SLOTNUM does not access state, so it neither changes an existing opcode's state-access ordering nor introduces an ordering point for a new state-accessing operation.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-45 The new opcode returns one context-derived stack value for a fixed fee and specifies no account, storage, or other state access.
Blob gas accounting changes	The proposal contains no blob gas accounting change.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-57 The specified changes are a fixed-cost opcode, a header field, and a PayloadAttributes field; no blob-gas rule is introduced or changed.
State gas accounting changes	No state-gas-charging site or state gas mechanism is added or modified.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-57 The opcode reads block context and the RPC changes transport a slot number; no state write, state-gas rate, budget, reservoir, or spill rule is specified.
New EVM gas refund	The proposal introduces no gas-refund mechanism.	eip.md · Gas Cost, lines 43-45 The only EVM gas behavior specified is a fixed charge of 2 for SLOTNUM; no refund behavior is described.
New transaction types	No new transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-57 The proposal adds an opcode, block-header field, and Engine API field, with no transaction envelope or transaction type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	The proposal does not create or modify transaction validity rules.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-57 Nothing in the specified opcode, header, or Engine API changes alters transaction validity or intrinsic gas calculation.
New fork activation mechanism	No special fork-activation state transition or internal-variable modification is specified.	eip.md · Specification, lines 29-57 The proposal defines ongoing opcode and per-block data behavior but no one-time state mutation or existing internal-variable modification at the activation block. Uncertainty: The activation rules are not described, but the text provides no evidence of a one-time mutation that would trigger this criterion.
Cryptography	No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or changed.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 13-15 and 29-45 The proposal adds a context-reading opcode with integer output and fixed gas; it introduces no cryptographic algorithm or modification.
Cross-EIP interactions	EIP-4788 is cited only to describe an existing alternative access path. EIP-7843 does not depend on, modify, or conflict with EIP-4788 and requires no coordinated EIP-4788 test cases, so it is self-contained under this anchor.	eip.md · Motivation, lines 19-27 The proposal identifies proving a supplied slot number against a beacon block root using EIP-4788 as an existing onchain access path that SLOTNUM is intended to improve upon. supporting/eip-4788.md · Abstract and Motivation, lines 14-25 EIP-4788 exposes beacon-chain roots in the EVM for proofs of consensus state, the proof mechanism referenced by EIP-7843. Uncertainty: None identified; a motivational comparison is not treated as a protocol interaction.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@0aefdc9d5a EIPS/eip-7843.md committed 2025-05-20 · information cutoff 2025-06-09T07:29:29Z
Current master · File history · blob 0f5d0ef12b · sha256 9f15ade995d4
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/amsterdam/eip-7843.yaml · sha256 40911b1426c6
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-4788.md

Evaluated on: 2026-08-25 · Spec revision: 2025-05-20 · 0aefdc9d5a

Scope at the cutoff. Blinded assessment of the sealed Draft EIP-7843: one fixed-cost SLOTNUM opcode, one uint64 execution-header field, and one uint64 PayloadAttributes field carrying a consensus-layer-derived slot number to the execution layer.

17MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v1
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 9 criteria affected
Plausible range: 11–22 (Medium–High)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-06-09 · EIP revision 0aefdc9d5a (2025-05-20)

Score bands · Checklist revision 1

Low <10
Medium 10–19
High ≥20

24 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 72.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the LLM total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

New block / header fields3
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
Security risks2
Added opcodes1

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 draft defines the high-level opcode and cross-layer fields but omits the slot calculation/validation rule, exact header position and canonical encoding, Engine API endpoint/version and mismatch behavior, transition-tool representation, EVM stack padding, activation/genesis handling, tests, and substantive security analysis. The 11-22 range varies only rows directly sensitive to those omissions or to the rubric's undefined Engine API encoding row; the explicit opcode, header-field, and block-encoding scores remain fixed.

Plausible total

11–22
recorded score 17 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Affected criteria (9)

EVM Gas rule changes (1)
Block syncing changes (1)
Engine API changes (1)
Engine API encoding changes (1)
Transition-tool interface changes (1)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (1)
Security risks (2)
Performance risks (1)
Edge/boundary conditions (1)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)

What exact consensus rule calculates slot_number, and which layer validates it against the block context?
Where is slot_number placed in the execution-header encoding, what are its canonical uint64 rules, and how is it handled at activation or genesis?
Which Engine API endpoint versions carry the PayloadAttributes field, and what happens when it is absent or conflicts with the eventual header?
How is the 8-byte big-endian value represented in the 32-byte EVM stack word and in transition-tool inputs?
Which existing test categories require updates, and what boundary, mismatch, and security cases are required?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (5)

Engine API encoding changes has no dedicated definition in the historical rubric; its score is therefore conservative and low-confidence.
The phrase '8 byte uint in big endian encoding' does not specify left-padding into an EVM stack word.
The header extension lacks field order, canonical integer constraints, explicit validation, and activation/genesis semantics.
The proposal says the slot is calculated in consensus and passed through Engine API but does not define the calculation or cross-layer mismatch handling.
The historical gas row does not explicitly resolve whether assigning the mandatory fixed fee of a new opcode also counts as updating the existing gas mechanism.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7843 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
New block / header fields	3	One new header field is explicit, which maps to the rubric's binary score of 3. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > RPC changes > Header extension The execution header gains a slot_number field of type uint64. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The field's exact header position and validation source are omitted, but its addition is unambiguous.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	3	A block-header encoding change is introduced, which maps to the rubric's binary score of 3. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > RPC changes > Header extension The proposal expressly extends header encoding with a uint64 slot_number field. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The existence of the encoding change is explicit, although the draft omits the field's exact position and canonical encoding details.
Security risksUnder-specified	2	Correctness spans a limited set of existing consensus, Engine API, header-validation, and EVM components; disagreement could expose an incorrect context value or cause block disagreement, supporting targeted review rather than extensive multi-mechanism review. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > RPC changes; Security Considerations A consensus-layer-calculated slot is carried through Engine API and the block header into EVM-visible execution, while the Security Considerations section says only 'None.' Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The draft defines neither who validates slot_number nor the behavior on a header/PayloadAttributes mismatch, and supplies no substantive security analysis.
Added opcodes	1	This is one simple opcode with simple stack mechanics and constant gas, exactly matching the score-1 anchor. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification; Specification > Output > Stack; Specification > Gas Cost One opcode, SLOTNUM at 0x4b, returns one stack element, takes no stated input or data portion, and costs a constant 2 gas. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The output padding is underspecified, but that does not make the opcode data-bearing, dynamically priced, or stack-complex under this row.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified	1	Adding a fixed charge for the new opcode extends the existing EVM gas schedule, but introduces no dynamic or independent accounting mechanism. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > Gas Cost SLOTNUM is assigned a fixed gas fee of 2. eip.md · Rationale > Gas Price The price is selected to match existing W_base opcodes. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The rubric does not say explicitly whether the unavoidable fixed price of a new opcode counts here in addition to the Added opcodes row; score 1 treats it as an update to the existing mechanism.
Block syncing changesUnder-specified	1	One fixed-width header-field addition is a single simple block-encoding validation change relevant to syncing. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > RPC changes > Header extension The header encoding is extended by one uint64 slot_number field. supporting/eip-4788.md · Specification > Block structure and validity The allowlisted related EIP demonstrates that execution-header schema extensions alter the header RLP and require header-value validation. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: EIP-7843 does not specify the field's exact RLP position, canonical integer constraints, or explicit block-validation rule.
Engine API changesUnder-specified	1	The proposal introduces exactly one new field in an existing Engine API object, matching the score-1 anchor. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > RPC changes > PayloadAttributes change PayloadAttributes is extended with one slot_number field of type uint64. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The draft does not identify endpoint versions or state how the field is handled when absent, but the specified field count is unambiguous.
Engine API encoding changesUnder-specified	1	Judged conservatively from the label alone, encoding one additional scalar in an existing Engine API object is a limited change warranting score 1. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > RPC changes > PayloadAttributes change The encoded Engine API object gains one uint64 slot_number field. rubric.md · Checklist > Engine API encoding changes The checklist contains this row but the rubric provides no dedicated scoring definition. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: The historical rubric has no dedicated definition for this row, so no authoritative mapping from the field addition to scores 0-3 is available.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified	1	A transition tool executing SLOTNUM needs the one new block-environment value, corresponding conservatively to a single added interface field. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > RPC changes > Header extension Execution headers gain one slot_number field whose value is consumed by the new opcode. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: The draft never defines a transition-tool interface or says whether slot_number is supplied as a new field or derived from an existing header input.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	1	The new opcode assignment and post-fork schema additions imply localized updates to existing opcode-invalidity and block/interface fixtures, fitting a minor subset rather than a broad redesign. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification; Test Cases The draft allocates opcode 0x4b and extends the header and PayloadAttributes schemas, while its Test Cases section is N/A. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: No test inventory or activation rules are supplied, so the number and categories of pre-existing tests affected cannot be established from the package.
Performance risksUnder-specified	1	The new opcode and scalar data path can be benchmarked in isolation and are not specified to disturb existing performance behavior, matching score 1. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > Gas Cost; Rationale > ZK-VM proving SLOTNUM is a fixed-cost scalar-returning opcode, and the draft says it is analogous to TIMESTAMP and should add neither proving complexity nor circuit inputs. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: No benchmarks are provided; the no-impact statement addresses ZK proving but not client processing of the added header/API field.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	1	The bounded uint64 value and its cross-layer representation form one boundary-condition-prone mechanism, particularly at numeric limits and at the stack-width conversion. Exceptional score: Not applicable; score is below 4.	eip.md · Specification > Output > Stack; RPC changes One uint64/8-byte big-endian value is propagated from consensus through header and Engine API to an EVM stack result. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The draft does not state the 8-to-32-byte EVM stack padding, overflow behavior, or consistency checks among PayloadAttributes, the header, and opcode output.

Show 12 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 1)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes	No pre-existing opcode is modified.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The change is expressly the addition of SLOTNUM at 0x4b; no existing opcode behavior is changed or deprecated. Uncertainty: The comparison to TIMESTAMP is rationale only and does not modify TIMESTAMP.
Added precompiles	No precompile is introduced.	eip.md · Specification (complete section) The executable feature is defined as an EVM opcode; no precompile address or precompile behavior is specified. Uncertainty: The sealed proposal contains no precompile mechanism.
Modified precompiles	No pre-existing precompile is modified.	eip.md · Specification (complete section) No existing precompile logic or gas schedule appears among the specified changes. Uncertainty: The sealed proposal contains no reference to precompile behavior.
Added system contracts	No system contract is introduced.	eip.md · Specification (complete section) The proposal adds an opcode and two data fields, with no contract deployment or system call. Uncertainty: The sealed proposal specifies no contract code, address, deployment, or system action.
Modified system contracts	Neither code nor state behavior of a pre-existing system contract is modified, directly or indirectly by the specified mechanism.	eip.md · Motivation; Specification (complete sections) EIP-4788 is mentioned only as an existing alternative for proving a supplied slot; SLOTNUM itself does not change a contract. supporting/eip-4788.md · Specification > Beacon roots contract The existing beacon-roots contract operates on timestamps and parent beacon block roots; EIP-7843 specifies no change to those operations. Uncertainty: The motivational reduction in use of the EIP-4788 alternative is not a protocol-level behavioral modification to that system contract.
Blob gas accounting changes	The proposal contains no blob gas accounting change.	eip.md · Specification (complete section) The specified changes are SLOTNUM, its fixed EVM fee, a slot_number header field, and a PayloadAttributes field; no blob-gas rule is specified. Uncertainty: No blob-related behavior appears anywhere in the sealed proposal.
New EVM gas refund	No gas-refund mechanism is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification > Gas Cost The only gas behavior specified is a fixed fee of 2 for SLOTNUM. Uncertainty: The sealed proposal contains no refund behavior.
New transaction types	No new transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Specification (complete section) The proposal adds an opcode, a header field, and a PayloadAttributes field, but no transaction envelope or type. Uncertainty: No transaction-format change appears in the sealed proposal.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	The new block/header value does not alter transaction validity or intrinsic gas under the sealed specification.	eip.md · Specification (complete section) No transaction validity rule or intrinsic-gas calculation is added or changed. Uncertainty: Block-header validity questions are assessed under block/header-related rows rather than treated as transaction validity.
New fork activation mechanism	Introducing the new opcode/header semantics at a fork is not itself a scored activation mutation, and no special state or variable modification is specified.	eip.md · Specification (complete section) The draft specifies the opcode and fields but no one-time state mutation or existing internal-variable modification at fork activation. Uncertainty: The draft contains no activation or genesis rules; if a later mechanism required a one-time modification, it is not part of the sealed evidence.
Cryptography	No cryptographic primitive, proof rule, or cryptographic functionality is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification; Rationale > ZK-VM proving The change returns a uint64 slot value and states that proving remains analogous to TIMESTAMP with no extra circuit input. Uncertainty: The ZK-VM discussion concerns proving inputs, not a new cryptographic mechanism.
Cross-EIP interactions	The proposed opcode and slot-number data path are self-contained with respect to the cited EIP-4788 mechanism; the comparison does not create a protocol dependency or required coordinated testing.	eip.md · Motivation EIP-4788 is cited as one existing, costly alternative for proving a caller-supplied slot number, not as a dependency of SLOTNUM. supporting/eip-4788.md · Abstract; Specification > Beacon roots contract EIP-4788 exposes beacon roots through a header commitment and contract, mechanisms that EIP-7843 neither modifies nor invokes. Uncertainty: The sealed proposal names no required EIP and describes EIP-4788 only as an alternative approach.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@0aefdc9d5a EIPS/eip-7843.md committed 2025-05-20 · information cutoff 2025-06-09T07:29:29Z
Current master · File history · blob 0f5d0ef12b · sha256 9f15ade995d4
Rubric: Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator: gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/05c-amsterdam-human-assessment-alignment/outputs/automated/eip-7843.yaml · sha256 785e0c03f7ef
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-4788.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded · Spec revision: 2025-06-09 · 77f096af0c

7LowLow

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v1
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2025-11-07 · EIP at 77f096af0c
Source: merged ethspecs/pm checklist

Score bands · Checklist revision 1

Low <10
Medium 10–19
High ≥20

24 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 72.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the Human total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

New block / header fields3
Added opcodes1
Engine API changes1
Transition-tool interface changes1

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7843 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
New block / header fields	3	No rationale recorded.	—
Added opcodes	1	New opcode added: `SLOTNUM`	—
Engine API changes	1	new field, `slot_number` is passed in the engine API	—
Transition-tool interface changes	1	new field, `slot_number` will need to be added	—
Edge/boundary conditions	1	Minimal, but need to check 0, and `uint64` big endian	—

Show 19 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 1)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Modified opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	—
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No rationale recorded.	—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No rationale recorded.	—
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New fork activation mechanism	No rationale recorded.	—
Engine API encoding changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	No rationale recorded.	—
Security risks	No rationale recorded.	—
Performance risks	No rationale recorded.	—
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	No rationale recorded.	—

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@77f096af0c EIPS/eip-7843.md committed 2025-06-09
EIP master revision at the time of the human checklist commit; the checklist itself does not pin an EIP revision.
Current master · File history · blob aeeffed14e · sha256 56d948e7e04e
Rubric: Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Merged checklist ethspecs/pm@6b2c7cd0b1 complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7843.md · committed 2025-11-07
blob 1bb42233b4 · sha256 5f036b6626bc
Research record: research/tasks/05c-amsterdam-human-assessment-alignment/inputs/human/eip-7843.yaml · sha256 70779e4b9d45

Both assessments applied Checklist revision 1 (24 criteria) to EIP-7843 in Amsterdam / Glamsterdam. Δ is LLM minus Human.

LLM17Medium

Human7Low

Δ total+10Tiers differ: Medium vs Low

Criteria17/24agree exactly · 5 differ by 1 · 2 differ by 2+

Clean same-rubric comparison. The human checklist evaluated the EIP as it stood when the checklist was written; the LLM evaluated the sealed historical revision. Input alignment: no substantive drift; human hindsight exposure: low exposure. The study's primary LLM score under checklist revision 2 is 23; it uses a different criterion inventory and thresholds and is not directly comparable to either total here.

Exposure evidence

The assessment describes required future interface fields and does not identify implementation or test outcomes.

Every intervening EIP revision is classified non-substantive by Task 01.

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ) (+3), Security risks (+2), EVM Gas rule changes (+1), Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (+1), Block syncing changes (+1)

Show differences only (7 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	3	0	+3	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM A block-header encoding change is introduced, which maps to the rubric's binary score of 3. Human No rationale recorded.
Security risks	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Correctness spans a limited set of existing consensus, Engine API, header-validation, and EVM components; disagreement could expose an incorrect context value or cause block disagreement, supporting targeted review rather than extensive multi-mechanism review. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Adding a fixed charge for the new opcode extends the existing EVM gas schedule, but introduces no dynamic or independent accounting mechanism. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM One fixed-width header-field addition is a single simple block-encoding validation change relevant to syncing. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API encoding changes	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Judged conservatively from the label alone, encoding one additional scalar in an existing Engine API object is a limited change warranting score 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The new opcode assignment and post-fork schema additions imply localized updates to existing opcode-invalidity and block/interface fixtures, fitting a minor subset rather than a broad redesign. Human No rationale recorded.
Performance risks	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The new opcode and scalar data path can be benchmarked in isolation and are not specified to disturb existing performance behavior, matching score 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Added opcodes	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM This is one simple opcode with simple stack mechanics and constant gas, exactly matching the score-1 anchor. Human New opcode added: `SLOTNUM`
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No pre-existing opcode is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No pre-existing precompile is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Neither code nor state behavior of a pre-existing system contract is modified, directly or indirectly by the specified mechanism. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal contains no blob gas accounting change. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No gas-refund mechanism is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new transaction type is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The new block/header value does not alter transaction validity or intrinsic gas under the sealed specification. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	3	3	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM One new header field is explicit, which maps to the rubric's binary score of 3. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Introducing the new opcode/header semantics at a fork is not itself a scored activation mutation, and no special state or variable modification is specified. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal introduces exactly one new field in an existing Engine API object, matching the score-1 anchor. Human new field, `slot_number` is passed in the engine API
Transition-tool interface changes	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM A transition tool executing SLOTNUM needs the one new block-environment value, corresponding conservatively to a single added interface field. Human new field, `slot_number` will need to be added
Edge/boundary conditions	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The bounded uint64 value and its cross-layer representation form one boundary-condition-prone mechanism, particularly at numeric limits and at the stack-width conversion. Human Minimal, but need to check 0, and `uint64` big endian
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic primitive, proof rule, or cryptographic functionality is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Cross-EIP interactions	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposed opcode and slot-number data path are self-contained with respect to the cited EIP-4788 mechanism; the comparison does not create a protocol dependency or required coordinated testing. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-7843 with other assessments All Amsterdam / Glamsterdam 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.