EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7862: Delayed State Root

Assessed in Hegotá. The score describes the EIP text available at the snapshot, not the EIP as it stands today.

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-08-25PFI at snapshotLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 14

Human Available in open PRscore 19 · Checklist revision 2· ethspecs/pm #124

Other checklist versions (1)

Pull request #125 · Checklist revision 2 · total 19

LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-26 · Original snapshot · 14 Human · Checklist revision 2Available in open PR · 19 CompareHuman vs LLM · same checklist revision

Evaluated on: 2026-08-26 · Spec revision: 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2 · Inclusion status at snapshot: PFI

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer-only assessment of the sealed EIP-7862 draft. The proposal changes the semantics of the existing EL header state_root to commit to the parent post-state, tracks the next root internally, and initializes that internal value at activation. EIP-7732 and EIP-7928 are considered only for their stated interactions; no consensus-layer complexity or linked-EIP implementation complexity is attributed to EIP-7862.

14MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No
Plausible range: 14–14 (Medium)
Snapshot: 2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)

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: No

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

The assessor found no material behavior left unresolved by the EIP text at the cutoff.

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (2)

The package does not define transition-tool or test-framework adaptations; the corresponding scores therefore reflect protocol necessity, not a particular implementation's convenience interface.
EIP-7732's CL state_root and EIP-7862's EL header state_root share a name but are explicitly separate; only the EL field is assessed here.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7862 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	3	Existing post-fork block tests across transaction contents and block sequences must re-derive a consensus-critical header expectation and its validation timing. This is a major, diverse regression surface rather than a contrived category.	eip.md · Abstract Every block header changes from committing to its own post-state to committing to the preceding block's post-state. eip.md · Specification > Header Validation; State Transition Header validation compares state_root with a carried prior root, while the current post-state root is computed for the next block. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The change requires a hard fork and unmodified clients reject delayed-root blocks. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The package provides no test inventory, so the exact number of rewritten vectors is unknown, but the rule applies to every post-activation block.
Security risks	3	A core state-commitment invariant is changed across header validation, state transition bookkeeping, reorg handling, retained state, and proof consumers. These include critical components and require extensive branch, invalid-root, and delayed-commitment review and fuzzing.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification > Header Validation Validators may attest without waiting for current state-root computation, while header validity instead checks the carried preceding-state root. eip.md · Security Considerations > Reorganization Handling; Pre-state Availability Correctness depends on recomputing the carried root on a new canonical branch and retaining the prior state through the delayed commitment. eip.md · Rationale > Light Client Impact State proofs acquire one slot of additional latency. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The EIP states that the light-client security model is unchanged, but that claim does not remove implementation risk from the altered commitment timing.
Performance risks	3	The feature changes timing and retention in the existing block-production and validation pipeline and has complex interaction with BAL-assisted root computation. Its impact cannot be validated fully in isolation and directly targets a substantial existing performance bottleneck.	eip.md · Motivation State-root computation is identified as a significant production bottleneck, and the proposal moves it out of the attestation critical path. eip.md · Rationale > BAL Synergy The intended path uses the preceding block's BAL for parallel proof generation and may let builders construct without fully executing the preceding block. eip.md · Security Considerations > Pre-state Availability Clients must retain the pre-state until its root is committed in the next block. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The package gives qualitative claims but no benchmark results; the score is for breadth and coupling of required performance validation, not claimed gain.
Edge/boundary conditions	3	Activation/first-successor behavior and branch changes are multiple boundary mechanisms. Reorg tests require an elevated matrix over branch depth, activation position, and valid versus stale delayed roots.	eip.md · Specification > Fork Activation Activation block F must contain the post-state root of F-1, and the steady delayed rule applies from F+1 onward. eip.md · Security Considerations > Reorganization Handling A reorganization requires recomputing last_computed_state_root for every block on the new canonical chain. eip.md · Specification > Header Validation Headers with number below 1 are explicitly invalid under the specified validation. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The exact reorg test matrix is not enumerated, but per-block recomputation on the replacement branch is normative.
Block syncing changes	1	This is one simple new validation mechanism for a header field that syncing clients process; it does not add or alter RLP fields.	eip.md · Specification > Header Validation A single validation rule checks the existing header state_root against the carried root from the preceding state transition. eip.md · Security Considerations > Reorganization Handling Syncing across a branch change must recompute the carried root on the new chain. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package specifies validation semantics but no dedicated sync protocol or sync-test procedure.
Cross-EIP interactions	1	The proposal has two explicit but bounded interactions: a field-semantics boundary with 7732 and optional performance synergy with 7928. Neither linked proposal is modified, and delayed-root correctness remains mostly testable on its own.	eip.md · Rationale > ePBS Compatibility EIP-7732's ExecutionPayloadEnvelope has a distinct CL state_root; EIP-7862 changes only the EL header state_root and says CL verification is unaffected. supporting/eip-7732.md · Specification > Execution Layer; Engine API The linked ePBS proposal specifies no EL or Engine API changes. eip.md · Rationale > BAL Synergy EIP-7928 BAL data can parallelize computation of the root to be included in the following block. supporting/eip-7928.md · Abstract; Specification > State Transition Function The linked BAL proposal supplies state accesses and post-transaction diffs and validates them against block execution. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Coordinated tests should distinguish the EL and CL fields and compare BAL-derived roots with the next header, but linked-EIP complexity is excluded. Interacting EIPs: EIP-7732, EIP-7928

Show 22 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	The proposal adds no opcode.	eip.md · Specification No opcode is defined in any part of the specified change. Uncertainty: None.
Modified opcodes	No existing opcode result or behavior is modified.	eip.md · Specification > State Transition Transaction/body execution is retained and only state-root validation timing changes. Uncertainty: None.
Added precompiles	The proposal adds no precompile.	eip.md · Specification No precompile is introduced in the specified mechanism. Uncertainty: None.
Modified precompiles	The proposal modifies no precompile.	eip.md · Specification No precompile logic or gas schedule appears in the change surface. Uncertainty: None.
Added system contracts	No system contract is added.	eip.md · Specification The complete change surface consists of header semantics, chain bookkeeping, validation, transition timing, and activation; no contract is introduced. Uncertainty: None; system contracts do not appear in the proposal's mechanism.
Modified system contracts	No existing system-contract code, state, or behavior is directly or indirectly modified by deferring the header root.	eip.md · Specification > State Transition The body application and other validations remain unchanged. Uncertainty: System-contract details in linked EIP-7928 describe that proposal and are not attributed to EIP-7862.
EVM Gas rule changes	Deferring the header commitment does not change execution-gas prices or introduce a gas-accounting mechanism.	eip.md · Specification > State Transition The transition applies the body as before and changes only when the resulting state root is stored; it specifies no EVM gas calculation. Uncertainty: No gas behavior is specified anywhere in the proposal's change surface.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	The proposal changes block-level root timing, not where an opcode accesses state or where gas is charged relative to that access.	eip.md · Rationale > BAL Synergy BAL data is described only as an optional input for parallel state-root computation after execution; no opcode execution path is changed. Uncertainty: State-access ordering rules in the linked EIP-7928 are not changes introduced by EIP-7862 and are therefore excluded.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas accounting rule is added or modified.	eip.md · Specification > Header The existing blob_gas_used and excess_blob_gas fields are shown unchanged; only state_root receives new semantics. Uncertainty: None; blob-gas fields are outside the specified change.
State gas accounting changes	State-root computation timing is not a state-gas charging change.	eip.md · Specification > State Transition The only post-body addition is computing and storing the root for the next block; no state-gas budget, rate, charging site, or spill path is defined. Uncertainty: None; the proposal contains no state-gas mechanism.
New EVM gas refund	The proposal introduces no EVM gas-refund mechanism.	eip.md · Specification > State Transition The transaction/body application remains unchanged and no refund rule is introduced. Uncertainty: None; refunds are not part of the specified change.
New transaction types	No transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > State Transition Existing transactions are passed unchanged to apply_body. Uncertainty: None.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No transaction validity rule or intrinsic-gas calculation is changed.	eip.md · Specification > State Transition Transactions and withdrawals are applied through the existing body path; the new validation applies to the block header root. Uncertainty: None; block-header validity is scored separately.
New block / header fields	The existing state_root field is reinterpreted; no block or header field is new.	eip.md · Specification > Header The specification explicitly states that no new fields are added. Uncertainty: None; the proposal is explicit.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	Changing the meaning of an existing same-typed field is not an RLP, SSZ, transaction, block, or interface encoding change.	eip.md · Specification > Header No field is added; the existing state_root field retains its Root type. Uncertainty: The block_access_list_hash shown in the header belongs to linked EIP-7928 and is not introduced by EIP-7862.
New fork activation mechanism	The only activation action is initialization of a new internal variable, which the rubric expressly excludes from a score on this anchor; no protocol state is modified.	eip.md · Specification > Fork Activation Activation initializes the newly introduced internal last_computed_state_root from the current State. Uncertainty: Activation-boundary test complexity is captured under Edge/boundary conditions, not duplicated here.
Engine API changes	EIP-7862 introduces no Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism. A semantic change to an existing EL header value does not meet this anchor's field/endpoint thresholds.	eip.md · Specification > Header The proposal expressly adds no header field and only changes state_root semantics. supporting/eip-7732.md · Specification > Engine API The linked ePBS proposal states that no Engine API changes are needed. Uncertainty: The EIP does not separately describe propagation of the changed existing state_root semantics through Engine API methods.
Transition-tool interface changes	The proposal requires transition logic changes but evidences no new external transition-tool field: the delayed header value and current State provide the values needed by the specified transition.	eip.md · Specification > BlockChain; State Transition; Fork Activation The prior root is represented as internal BlockChain state, is initialized from the current State at activation, and is updated from the resulting State after each block. Uncertainty: No transition-tool contract is included in the package, so this score is limited to the absence of a required external interface change in the EIP.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Tests must change an existing state-root expectation, scored above as test rework, but do not gain a separate new artifact or assertion.	eip.md · Specification > Header No field is added; the already-existing state_root field receives different semantics. Uncertainty: Internal last_computed_state_root bookkeeping need not be exposed as an additional test invariant.
New test-framework primitives	Nothing in the sealed specification requires a new expectation type, modifier, or permanent framework abstraction beyond constructing sequential blocks with chosen header roots.	eip.md · Specification > Header Validation; State Transition; Fork Activation The behavior can be exercised using block sequences, existing header fields, state roots, and fork activation. Uncertainty: The package contains no test-framework description; implementation-specific convenience helpers are not treated as required primitives.
Cryptography	No new or modified cryptographic mechanism is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Header; State Transition The proposal reuses the existing Root type and state_root computation and changes only which block's result is placed in the header. Uncertainty: None; reuse of an existing state-root function is not new cryptography.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	The sealed text determines the consensus result for the constructible delayed root, activation, and reorg cases it introduces; no previously unobservable choice is left for clients to baseline.	eip.md · Specification > Header Validation; State Transition; Fork Activation The compared value, update point, activation value, and F/F+1 header roots are all specified normatively or in executable pseudocode. eip.md · Security Considerations > Reorganization Handling The required carried-root outcome on a new canonical branch is specified as per-block recomputation. Uncertainty: Prohibited implementation, devnet, and discussion evidence is unavailable by design; operational algorithms are not treated as consensus ambiguity where the required root value is deterministic.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-7862.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 771e60beb3 · sha256 2f044dc1c00a
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/08-hegota-prospective-complexity-assessment/outputs/assessments/hegota-pfi-2026-08-26/eip-7862.yaml · sha256 f2c6a70f8b1c
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-7732.md, supporting/eip-7928.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

19MediumMedium

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v2
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2026-08-24
Source: open ethspecs/pm pull request #124

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.

Total taken from the cells. The checklist publishes a total of 26, but its 28 cells sum to 19. The cells are the primary record, so the cell sum is used here and in every comparison.

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

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3
New invariant on pre-existing tests3
New test-framework primitives3
Transition-tool interface changes2

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7862 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	3	Every blockchain-test fixture for this fork must be regenerated: each header now commits a different state_root, causing all block hashes and downstream parent_hash values to be re-derived. Two categories require redesign: (1) tests with deliberately wrong state_root now expect rejection on the successor rather than the offending block, and (2) state_test-derived fixtures no longer commit their post-state root anywhere since they execute as single-block chains. Affects state, blockchain, transition, and benchmark fixtures.	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	3	Every test in the fork, regardless of its purpose, requires two additional assertions: that its header's state_root matches the parent's post-state root, and that its own post-state root is not established by its header. Fork-transition vectors must be re-derived, as block F repeats F-1's root—a configuration no pre-fork vector exhibits.	—
New test-framework primitives	3	Header assembly is framework-level. Block n's root comes from block n-1's execution, changing data flow globally. New primitives needed: (1) final post-state validation (sealing block or fixture-level field), (2) consume simulators modeling valid-then-invalidated payloads. Permanent framework change.	—
Transition-tool interface changes	2	The t8n tool is per-block and stateless, but the delayed root requires chain-level state across invocations. Two approaches: (1) thread invocation n's stateRoot output into block n+1's header, or (2) have the tool take an explicit lastComputedStateRoot env input to validate headers and detect faults. Either way requires a new mechanism, not a field addition.	—
Performance risks	2	The performance benefit (root off critical path, parallelized) is a pipeline property under ePBS, not isolatable for benchmarking. Secondary cost: parent pre-state held one slot longer.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	2	Deferred detection means invalid post-states surface only on successors, crossed with cases where the successor is absent, also invalid, or reorged away. Fork activation has distinctive edge cases: block F repeats state_root with its predecessor, and header.number < 1 must be handled at genesis. Empty blocks and reorgs allow stale last_computed_state_root values to pass undetected.	—
Block syncing changes	1	No RLP or encoding changes, but the header's state-root validation becomes stateful across blocks. A syncing client must accept a block with mismatched state_root, retain its computed root, and apply it to the successor. This cannot be tested with t8n alone—it requires a real client syncing a multi-block chain, including chains ending on unvalidated tips.	—
Security risks	1	Detection latency ripples through attestations, fork choice, builders, light clients, and tips. Mis-attributing faults is consensus-critical. Needs extensive review and fuzzing.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	1	EIP-7928 (BAL) enables parallel root computation; header includes block_access_list_hash. EIP-7732 (ePBS) provides builder-timing and introduces CL-side state_root needing coordinated testing.	—
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	1	which block is invalid when state roots disagree? The pseudocode marks n+1, but the defect is in n. Fork choice, newPayload, and peer scoring lack attribution guidance. Unsettled: genesis handling, RPC state root reporting, tip root exposure.	—

Show 18 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	No new opcodes.	—
Modified opcodes	No changes to the opcode	—
Added precompiles	No new precompiles.	—
Modified precompiles	No precompiles modified.	—
Added system contracts	No new system contracts.	—
Modified system contracts	No system contract's code, state or invocation is affected, directly or indirectly.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	No gas accounting is touched.	—
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No opcode's state-access site or gas-charge ordering changes. Although the EIP leverages the BAL to parallelize root computation, it neither modifies what the BAL records nor when it records it.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No interaction with blob gas.	—
State gas accounting changes	No state gas charging site, rate or budget is touched.	—
New EVM gas refund	No refund mechanism.	—
New transaction types	No new transaction type.	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	Transaction validity rules and intrinsic gas are entirely unchanged.	—
New block / header fields	The `state_root` field semantics change but no new fields are added.	—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No encoding changes	—
New fork activation mechanism	No new mechanism introduced	—
Engine API changes	No new fields and no new endpoints	—
Cryptography	No cryptography introduced or modified. The state root is computed by the same trie machinery as before.	—

Assessment provenance

Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Open pull request #124: Add EIP-7862 complexity assessment · checklist at 1dc6a16291 · updated 2026-08-24
blob 440aa59d0d · sha256 40f8fb876f96
Research record: research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-7862.yaml · sha256 293e1d8032a6

Both assessments applied Checklist revision 2 (28 criteria) to EIP-7862 in Hegotá. Δ is LLM minus Human.

Using the latest scored LLM evaluation for this checklist: 2026-08-26 · spec 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2. The Human and LLM assessments may use different spec revisions.

LLM14Medium

Human19Medium

Δ total−5Same tier

Criteria21/28agree exactly · 3 differ by 1 · 4 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: New invariant on pre-existing tests (−3), New test-framework primitives (−3), Transition-tool interface changes (−2), Security risks (+2), Edge/boundary conditions (+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
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	3	−3	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Tests must change an existing state-root expectation, scored above as test rework, but do not gain a separate new artifact or assertion. Human Every test in the fork, regardless of its purpose, requires two additional assertions: that its header's state_root matches the parent's post-state root, and that its own post-state root is not established by its header. Fork-transition vectors must be re-derived, as block F repeats F-1's root—a configuration no pre-fork vector exhibits.
New test-framework primitives	0	3	−3	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Nothing in the sealed specification requires a new expectation type, modifier, or permanent framework abstraction beyond constructing sequential blocks with chosen header roots. Human Header assembly is framework-level. Block n's root comes from block n-1's execution, changing data flow globally. New primitives needed: (1) final post-state validation (sealing block or fixture-level field), (2) consume simulators modeling valid-then-invalidated payloads. Permanent framework change.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	2	−2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The proposal requires transition logic changes but evidences no new external transition-tool field: the delayed header value and current State provide the values needed by the specified transition. Human The t8n tool is per-block and stateless, but the delayed root requires chain-level state across invocations. Two approaches: (1) thread invocation n's stateRoot output into block n+1's header, or (2) have the tool take an explicit lastComputedStateRoot env input to validate headers and detect faults. Either way requires a new mechanism, not a field addition.
Security risks	3	1	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM A core state-commitment invariant is changed across header validation, state transition bookkeeping, reorg handling, retained state, and proof consumers. These include critical components and require extensive branch, invalid-root, and delayed-commitment review and fuzzing. Human Detection latency ripples through attestations, fork choice, builders, light clients, and tips. Mis-attributing faults is consensus-critical. Needs extensive review and fuzzing.
Performance risks	3	2	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The feature changes timing and retention in the existing block-production and validation pipeline and has complex interaction with BAL-assisted root computation. Its impact cannot be validated fully in isolation and directly targets a substantial existing performance bottleneck. Human The performance benefit (root off critical path, parallelized) is a pipeline property under ePBS, not isolatable for benchmarking. Secondary cost: parent pre-state held one slot longer.
Edge/boundary conditions	3	2	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Activation/first-successor behavior and branch changes are multiple boundary mechanisms. Reorg tests require an elevated matrix over branch depth, activation position, and valid versus stale delayed roots. Human Deferred detection means invalid post-states surface only on successors, crossed with cases where the successor is absent, also invalid, or reorged away. Fork activation has distinctive edge cases: block F repeats state_root with its predecessor, and header.number < 1 must be handled at genesis. Empty blocks and reorgs allow stale last_computed_state_root values to pass undetected.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The sealed text determines the consensus result for the constructible delayed root, activation, and reorg cases it introduces; no previously unobservable choice is left for clients to baseline. Human which block is invalid when state roots disagree? The pseudocode marks n+1, but the defect is in n. Fork choice, newPayload, and peer scoring lack attribution guidance. Unsettled: genesis handling, RPC state root reporting, tip root exposure.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal adds no opcode. Human No new opcodes.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No existing opcode result or behavior is modified. Human No changes to the opcode
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal adds no precompile. Human No new precompiles.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal modifies no precompile. Human No precompiles modified.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract is added. Human No new system contracts.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No existing system-contract code, state, or behavior is directly or indirectly modified by deferring the header root. Human No system contract's code, state or invocation is affected, directly or indirectly.
EVM Gas rule changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Deferring the header commitment does not change execution-gas prices or introduce a gas-accounting mechanism. Human No gas accounting is touched.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal changes block-level root timing, not where an opcode accesses state or where gas is charged relative to that access. Human No opcode's state-access site or gas-charge ordering changes. Although the EIP leverages the BAL to parallelize root computation, it neither modifies what the BAL records nor when it records it.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas accounting rule is added or modified. Human No interaction with blob gas.
State gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM State-root computation timing is not a state-gas charging change. Human No state gas charging site, rate or budget is touched.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal introduces no EVM gas-refund mechanism. Human No refund mechanism.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transaction type is introduced. Human No new transaction type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transaction validity rule or intrinsic-gas calculation is changed. Human Transaction validity rules and intrinsic gas are entirely unchanged.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The existing state_root field is reinterpreted; no block or header field is new. Human The `state_root` field semantics change but no new fields are added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Changing the meaning of an existing same-typed field is not an RLP, SSZ, transaction, block, or interface encoding change. Human No encoding changes
Block syncing changes	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM This is one simple new validation mechanism for a header field that syncing clients process; it does not add or alter RLP fields. Human No RLP or encoding changes, but the header's state-root validation becomes stateful across blocks. A syncing client must accept a block with mismatched state_root, retain its computed root, and apply it to the successor. This cannot be tested with t8n alone—it requires a real client syncing a multi-block chain, including chains ending on unvalidated tips.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The only activation action is initialization of a new internal variable, which the rubric expressly excludes from a score on this anchor; no protocol state is modified. Human No new mechanism introduced
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM EIP-7862 introduces no Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism. A semantic change to an existing EL header value does not meet this anchor's field/endpoint thresholds. Human No new fields and no new endpoints
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	3	3	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Existing post-fork block tests across transaction contents and block sequences must re-derive a consensus-critical header expectation and its validation timing. This is a major, diverse regression surface rather than a contrived category. Human Every blockchain-test fixture for this fork must be regenerated: each header now commits a different state_root, causing all block hashes and downstream parent_hash values to be re-derived. Two categories require redesign: (1) tests with deliberately wrong state_root now expect rejection on the successor rather than the offending block, and (2) state_test-derived fixtures no longer commit their post-state root anywhere since they execute as single-block chains. Affects state, blockchain, transition, and benchmark fixtures.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new or modified cryptographic mechanism is introduced. Human No cryptography introduced or modified. The state root is computed by the same trie machinery as before.
Cross-EIP interactions	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal has two explicit but bounded interactions: a field-semantics boundary with 7732 and optional performance synergy with 7928. Neither linked proposal is modified, and delayed-root correctness remains mostly testable on its own. Human EIP-7928 (BAL) enables parallel root computation; header includes block_access_list_hash. EIP-7732 (ePBS) provides builder-timing and introduces CL-side state_root needing coordinated testing.

Compare EIP-7862 with other assessments All Hegotá 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.