EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7883: ModExp Gas Cost Increase

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

RetrospectiveOsaka / FusakaAssessment cutoff 2025-02-21Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 8

Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: 2026-08-21 · Spec revision: 2025-02-14 · 4a06cae0ed

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, this draft changed only the gas-pricing algorithm for the existing ModExp precompile, building on EIP-2565. It raised the minimum charge from 200 to 500, doubled the exponent-length contribution above 32 bytes, and doubled multiplication complexity when the base or modulus exceeds 32 bytes. The interface and arithmetic algorithms remained unchanged, and existing vectors were to be reused with updated gas values.

8LowLow

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No
Plausible range: 8–8 (Low)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-02-21 · EIP revision 4a06cae0ed (2025-02-14)

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.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7883 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Edge/boundary conditions	2	Multiple boundary-prone mechanisms must be checked below, at, and above their thresholds, including the interaction with the minimum charge. The branches are simple closed-form rules and no single one requires an elevated case count, matching score 2 rather than score 3.	eip.md · Specification, lines 27-45 The formula contains a 32-byte base-or-modulus branch, a 32-byte exponent branch, and a 500-gas floor. eip.md · Changes, lines 50-103 The three changes separately alter the minimum-price boundary and the length-dependent behavior above 32 bytes. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Combining base, modulus, and exponent dimensions expands the useful test matrix, but the EIP's unchanged interface and explicit formulas keep each boundary independently tractable.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	The proposal directly modifies EIP-2565, requiring its pricing vectors and boundary expectations to be coordinated with the new formula. The interaction is limited to one existing precompile and one EIP, matching score 2 rather than a broad multi-EIP interdependency score. Interacting EIPs: EIP-2565.	eip.md · Front matter and Abstract, lines 1-16 EIP-7883 requires EIP-2565 and explicitly modifies the ModExp pricing algorithm introduced by it. supporting/eip-2565.md · Specification, lines 22-40 EIP-2565 supplies the baseline multiplication, iteration, and minimum-cost formula that EIP-7883 changes. Confidence: High Interacting EIPs: EIP-2565
Modified precompiles	1	Exactly one pre-existing precompile has its gas schedule modified without a behavior change, matching score 1.	eip.md · Changes, lines 48-103 The minimum charge and two length-dependent terms in the existing ModExp gas schedule are increased. eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-115 The underlying interface and arithmetic are unchanged, isolating the modification to gas pricing. Confidence: High
EVM Gas rule changes	1	This updates an existing EVM gas-accounting mechanism for one precompile, matching score 1; it does not introduce a separate gas mechanism.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-45 The existing ModExp call cost is recalculated with changed constants and length-dependent branches. Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	A minor, localized subset of pre-existing tests that assert ModExp gas or gas-boundary outcomes must be reworked, matching score 1. The EIP does not imply broad changes across diverse test categories.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-147 Existing ModExp vectors are reusable, but their expected pricing values are updated across the supplied table. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The package does not enumerate every pre-existing test that embeds a ModExp gas allowance, but the affected rule remains limited to one precompile.
Performance risks	1	The modified pricing needs performance calibration, but ModExp can be benchmarked in isolation and its execution algorithm is unchanged. This matches score 1 rather than a benchmark interaction score.	eip.md · Motivation and Rationale, lines 18-20 and 105-107 Benchmarking identified underpriced cases, and the new parameters target a cost no lower than EcRecover for worst-performing cases. eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-115 No arithmetic algorithm changes, so validation concerns the isolated relationship between input shapes, runtime, and price. Confidence: High

Show 22 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is introduced, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-24 The target is an existing precompile address rather than a new EVM instruction.
Modified opcodes	The proposal modifies no opcode result or behavior and does not deprecate an opcode. Gas-only changes would also be excluded by this anchor, so the score is 0.	eip.md · Abstract and Test Cases, lines 14-16 and 113-115 Only a precompile pricing algorithm changes, with no change to the underlying arithmetic behavior.
Added precompiles	No new precompile is introduced, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-24 The proposal modifies pricing for the existing ModExp precompile at address 0x05.
Added system contracts	Repricing an existing precompile does not add a system contract, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-24 The change applies to the already existing precompile at address 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000005.
Modified system contracts	A precompile gas-schedule update is not a direct or indirect modification to a pre-existing system contract under this anchor, so the score is 0.	eip.md · Abstract and Test Cases, lines 14-16 and 113-115 The EIP reprices a precompile while leaving its interface and arithmetic behavior unchanged.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	The change is confined to pricing an existing precompile and specifies no state access or change in charging order relative to a state access, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-115 The EIP states that the underlying interface and arithmetic algorithms do not change.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob gas rule or mechanism is introduced or modified, which is the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Abstract, lines 14-16 The stated scope is modification of the ModExp precompile pricing algorithm.
State gas accounting changes	The proposal changes neither state-write gas rates nor a state-gas budget, charging site, reservoir, or spill path, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-45 The specification defines only execution-gas pricing for a call to the ModExp precompile.
New EVM gas refund	The EIP only increases charges and introduces no gas-refund mechanism, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 42-45 The gas-cost function returns a charge with a minimum of 500 and specifies no refund path.
New transaction types	No transaction type is introduced, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-24 The complete stated scope is repricing calls to the existing ModExp precompile.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	Execution-time precompile charging does not change transaction validity rules or intrinsic gas calculation, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-45 The formula determines execution gas for a precompile call and does not define transaction validation or intrinsic gas.
New block / header fields	No block or header field is introduced, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-24 The proposal changes only the pricing algorithm for an existing precompile call.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	The EIP introduces no transaction-, block-, or interface-level encoding change, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-115 The underlying interface is unchanged; only pricing differs.
Block syncing changes	It introduces no block RLP validation mechanism and therefore no syncing change, which is the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification, lines 14-24 The proposal is limited to pricing calls to an existing precompile.
New fork activation mechanism	Ordinary activation of a new pricing rule is not a fork-block state or internal-variable modification under this anchor, so the score is 0.	eip.md · Specification, lines 22-45 Activation switches the gas-cost formula and specifies no one-time state or internal-variable mutation.
Engine API changes	No Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism is added, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-115 The underlying interface is explicitly unchanged.
Transition-tool interface changes	The repricing requires no new transition-tool field or interface mechanism, which is the score-0 anchor.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-115 The EIP explicitly states that there are no changes to the underlying interface.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Pre-existing tests need updated gas expectations, not a new invariant that tests unrelated to this EIP must additionally assert, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-117 Existing vectors are reused with changed expected prices rather than gaining an additional assertion.
New test-framework primitives	Reusing existing vectors with new expected values requires no new framework abstraction, expectation type, modifier, or helper, so the score-0 anchor applies.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-117 Existing test vectors can be reused by substituting the updated pricing expectations.
Security risks	Because the change only raises gas charges and leaves functionality intact, the written proposal introduces no mechanism that compromises an existing security invariant. The score-0 anchor applies; overpricing is a usability and calibration concern captured under performance, not a new security interaction.	eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 154-156 The EIP introduces no functionality and makes no operation cheaper; it identifies only the possibility of overpricing ModExp scenarios.
Cryptography	Although modular exponentiation is useful to cryptographic applications, this EIP introduces and modifies no cryptographic mechanism; it only reprices execution. The score-0 anchor therefore applies.	eip.md · Test Cases, lines 113-115 The proposal changes neither the ModExp arithmetic algorithm nor its interface.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	The assessment-time text determines the changed gas result for constructible boundary cases and preserves the existing interface and arithmetic. No new detail needs client agreement before vectors can be baselined, so the score is 0.	eip.md · Specification, lines 24-45 Explicit branches define multiplication complexity, iteration count, and the final gas cost for the input lengths and exponent. eip.md · Changes, lines 50-103 Each departure from EIP-2565 is identified by its exact replacement constant or formula branch. Uncertainty: The draft has no reference implementation, but absence of an implementation does not create an unresolved semantic case in the explicit pricing formula.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@4a06cae0ed EIPS/eip-7883.md committed 2025-02-14 · information cutoff 2025-02-21T10:10:59Z
Current master · File history · blob 8fdc33692f · sha256 ca87942f7dcb
Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/05-retrospective-complexity-assignment/outputs/fork-eips/osaka/eip-7883.yaml · sha256 18a4a325aba4
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-2565.md

Compare EIP-7883 with other assessments All Osaka / Fusaka assessments

Criterion legend and glossary

Every stacked bar, comparison matrix, and criterion table on this site uses the same criterion colours, abbreviations, and order. Colour marks the criterion group; the abbreviation and name identify the criterion. Scores are 0–3 per criterion (4 is exceptional; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped).

EVM surface

Opcodes, precompiles, and system contracts that are added or modified.

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

Gas and accounting

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

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

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

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

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

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

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

Testing impact

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

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

Risk and validation

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

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

Coordination

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

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