Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

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 9
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

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

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7883, at the assessed revision, changes only the gas cost of the existing ModExp precompile at 0x05. It changes three things in the EIP-2565 pricing formula. The minimum price goes from 200 to 500 gas. The per-byte multiplier for exponents longer than 32 bytes goes from 8 to 16. Multiplication complexity doubles when the base or modulus is longer than 32 bytes. The precompile's interface and arithmetic are unchanged. The EIP gives an updated table of gas results for named test vectors.

9LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
No
Plausible range
9–9 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2025-02-21 · EIP revision 4a06cae0ed (2025-02-14)
Score bands · Checklist revision 3
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

28 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 84.

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
  2. Edge/boundary conditions2
  3. Modified precompiles1
  4. EVM Gas rule changes1

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 (3)
  • The meaning of 'exponent' (the first 32 bytes of the exponent when exponent_length > 32) is inherited from EIP-198, which was not supplied.
  • The marcin_* test vector inputs are named but not supplied, so their expected values (including the 0% rows) cannot be checked independently.
  • Whether a precompile gas-only repricing also counts under GAS, not just ~PC, is a template interpretation; both were scored at 1.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7883 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2Ordinary cases throughout the ModExp precompile test family need new expected gas. Calls supplying exactly the old gas would now run out of gas. This is confined to one behavioral family, so level 2.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — 'Below is a table with the updated test vectors' Most existing ModExp vectors (nagydani, marius, guido, marcin) get new expected gas, mostly increases of 83–150%.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — 'This change is backwards incompatible' Baseline gas expectations change.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Other baseline tests that call ModExp incidentally with tight gas could also need rework. This cannot be measured without a test suite.
Edge/boundary conditions2Several boundary-sensitive rules change or are added: the complexity doubling at 32 bytes, the exponent-length slope above 32 bytes and the 500-gas floor. The floor depends on the product of the other two terms, but each boundary can still be tested with targeted vectors. No elevated matrix is established, so level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — 'if max_length <= 32: ... elif max_length > 32: multiplication_complexity = 2 * words**2' Adds a new 32/33-byte boundary on max(base_length, modulus_length) that doubles complexity.
  • eip.md · Specification — 'iteration_count = (16 * (exponent_length - 32))' Changes the cost slope above the 32-byte exponent-length boundary.
  • eip.md · Specification — 'return max(500, ...)' Moves the floor that decides when the minimum price applies.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Combining the floor with the two 32-byte regimes might be argued as an elevated matrix (level 3).
Modified precompiles1Exactly one precompile has a gas-only change and none has a behavior change, so level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification The ModExp (0x05) gas formula changes.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — 'no changes to the underlying interface or arithmetic algorithms' Outputs, accepted inputs and failure rules stay the same.
Confidence: High
EVM Gas rule changes1Existing execution-gas parameters and formula terms change: the floor, the exponent multiplier and a 32-byte doubling in complexity. No new accounting mechanism is introduced, which is level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification — 'the gas cost of calling the precompile at address ... 0x05 will be calculated as follows' Replaces the gas formula for an existing precompile. This changes the execution gas charged for baseline ModExp calls.
  • eip.md · Specification — '1. Increase minimal price from 200 to 500' Changes parameters in the existing accounting rule; no new mechanism is added.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Precompile gas could be treated only under ~PC. It is scored here too because baseline execution-gas results change.
Security risks1The changed DoS-pricing condition can be checked locally for this one precompile. No other component's assumptions change.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — 'no new functionality is introduced or made cheaper' Only cost increases. The DoS-pricing boundary for ModExp is adjusted locally.
  • supporting/eip-2565.md · Security Considerations — 'potential DoS vector' The relevant security condition is DoS through underpricing.
Confidence: Medium
Performance risks1Component benchmarks of ModExp across input shapes are enough to validate the new prices. Integrated performance assumptions do not change, so level 1.
  • eip.md · Motivation — 'make ModExp at least as fast as EcRecover precompile in all cases' Sets a throughput target: ModExp gas per unit time must be no better than EcRecover's.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — 'risk of potentially overpriced ModExp scenarios' The repricing needs benchmark validation in both directions.
Confidence: Medium
Cross-EIP interactions1The interaction with EIP-2565 needs only local compatibility checks. The terms carried over (word rounding, iteration count for exponents ≤32 bytes, the /3 divisor) must stay the same. Gas must switch from EIP-2565 to EIP-7883 pricing at the fork boundary. No coordinated multi-EIP scenarios are needed.
  • eip.md · Abstract — 'modifying the ModExp precompile pricing algorithm introduced in EIP-2565' The target replaces terms of EIP-2565's formula and keeps the rest.
  • supporting/eip-2565.md · Specification Defines the baseline formula, including the 200 floor, multiplier 8 and words**2.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Interactions with call-gas forwarding or warm/cold precompile access come from EIPs that were not supplied. They are unchanged by this EIP.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-2565
Show 21 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction is added.
Modified opcodes0The template excludes changed precompile cost through an unchanged instruction.
  • eip.md · Specification Precompile gas changes are reached through unchanged CALL-family instructions.
Added precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification — 'precompile at address 0x...05' Modifies an existing address only.
Added system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No contract is deployed.
Modified system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification Only a native precompile is affected.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's access order or gas-charge order changes.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — 'There are no changes to the underlying interface or arithmetic algorithms' Only the precompile's internal pricing changes. The order in which instructions access state is untouched.
Blob gas accounting changes0Blob gas is unaffected.
  • eip.md · Specification Changes only ModExp execution gas.
State gas accounting changes0State-gas accounting does not change.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-writing cost is involved.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism is added.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund is mentioned.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0None.
  • eip.md · Specification Only execution-time precompile gas changes. Intrinsic gas and validity rules are untouched.
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header fields.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0None.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — 'no changes to the underlying interface' No serialization change.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP or structural validation change.
  • eip.md · Specification No change to block structure or decoding.
New fork activation mechanism0Rule or constant selection does not count.
  • eip.md · Specification — 'Upon activation of this EIP' Only rule selection at activation. No state migration.
Engine API changes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API change.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool interface change is needed.
  • eip.md · Specification A gas-formula change selected by fork. No new input or output fields.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Only existing gas values change, which counts under PAT.
  • eip.md · Specification No new output, log or field is introduced.
New test-framework primitives0Existing precompile-call and gas-check primitives are enough.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — 'the existing test vectors can be reused' Existing vectors are reused with new expected gas.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism or validation rule changes.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — 'no changes to the underlying interface or arithmetic algorithms' ModExp arithmetic and outputs are unchanged.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus0The pricing outcome is fully determined. How 'exponent' (the exponent head) is defined is inherited from EIP-198, which was not supplied. That is an evidence gap, not an omission in this spec.
  • eip.md · Specification — calculate_gas_cost pseudocode Complete formula given, with explicit 32-byte thresholds and a floor.
  • eip.md · Test Cases table Expected values for the named vectors, consistent with the formula (e.g. nagydani_1_pow0x10001: 2*8^2*16/3 = 682).
Uncertainty: The inputs for the marcin vectors are named but not supplied, so they cannot be checked independently.
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 3 · ethspecs/pm@fe2f793b03
Evaluator
Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5) at high effort, one tool-less call per EIP · isolation bubblewrap_claude_p_no_tools_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/10-opus-v3-reassessment/retrospective/outputs/assessments/osaka/eip-7883.yaml · sha256 49913d86ded5
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-2565.md
Compare EIP-7883 with other assessmentsAll 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.

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

Gas and accounting

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

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

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

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

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

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

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

Testing impact

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

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

Risk and validation

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

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

Coordination

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

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