Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7892: Blob Parameter Only Hardforks

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 2025-03-25Included by cutoffLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 18
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2025-03-24 · 216ebd2f32

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, draft informational EIP-7892 defined Blob Parameter Only hard forks as changes restricted to the blob target, blob limit, and blob base-fee update fraction. It extended EIP-7840's execution layer blobSchedule to arbitrary timestamp entries and added consensus-layer epoch/max-blob configuration, with cross-layer alignment, equality, and non-conflict requirements. Concrete parameter values and activation schedules were explicitly outside the proposal's scope, while the stated purpose was repeated capacity scaling after observing demand and network performance, including around EIP-7594.

18MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 7 criteria affected
Plausible range
13–21 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2025-03-25 · EIP revision 216ebd2f32 (2025-03-24)
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.

Top complexity drivers

  1. New fork activation mechanism3
  2. Performance risks3
  3. Edge/boundary conditions3
  4. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: Concrete parameter values and activation schedules are intentionally out of scope, and the draft does not define parsing/selection and failure behavior for missing, incomplete, conflicting, misaligned, or cross-layer-mismatched schedules. It also does not say how transition tools or test frameworks represent an arbitrary sequence of BPO activations. These gaps chiefly vary the size and baseline of schedule-boundary, regression, performance, and security testing; they are not counted as separate high-complexity mechanisms.

Plausible total

13–21
recorded score 18 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • How must clients handle a missing or incomplete entry for a scheduled BPO activation, including omission of only one of the three parameters?
  • What precisely constitutes a conflict with another fork schedule, and must clients reject conflicting configuration or apply a deterministic precedence?
  • What behavior is required when execution and consensus schedules disagree on activation alignment or maximum blob count?
  • How are multiple consensus-layer BPO_FORK entries uniquely represented and selected at and around epoch boundaries?
  • Which concrete values and activation points define the test matrix for any actual BPO fork?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The phrase that any of the three parameters MAY change does not specify whether unchanged fields must be repeated or inherited in each timestamp entry.
  • The repeated BPO_FORK consensus configuration example is illustrative rather than a complete schema, leaving uniqueness and malformed-entry behavior open.
  • The non-conflict requirement does not define conflict or resolution behavior.
  • Actual BPO values and dates are excluded, so this assessment covers the mechanism rather than the risk magnitude of a particular capacity increase.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7892 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
New fork activation mechanism3Each BPO activation modifies existing internal protocol parameters at its activation boundary. That directly satisfies the rubric's binary score-3 condition for modifying internal variables or similar at a fork activation block.
  • eip.md · Specification and Requirements, lines 42-90 Existing blob parameters may switch at arbitrary execution timestamps and corresponding consensus epoch starts, with the two schedules required to align.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Concrete activation points are outside scope, but the activation mechanism and parameter modification are explicit.
Performance risksUnder-specified3Raising blob target and limit affects block-wide data volume and existing networking/availability work, and the proposal itself relies on real-world observation rather than isolated benchmarking. The impact can be substantial and interacts with existing DA mechanisms, matching score 3.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 19-34 BPO forks are intended to increase saturated blob capacity, with increases chosen after observing mainnet performance and stability around new scaling technology such as EIP-7594.
  • supporting/eip-7594.md · Specification, lines 24-30 PeerDAS distributes cells from all blob rows through custody, gossip, peer sampling, and reconstruction every slot, tying blob volume to network work.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The proposal deliberately omits actual parameter values, so the magnitude of any particular BPO fork cannot be quantified.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3The mechanism introduces multiple boundary-prone dimensions: before/at/after each activation, successive entries, independent changes to three parameters, epoch/timestamp alignment, and cross-layer equality. The arbitrary number of entries makes the boundary matrix elevated rather than a small fixed set, satisfying score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification and Requirements, lines 48-90 The schedule accepts an arbitrary number of timestamped changes, while execution timestamps must align to consensus epoch starts, schedules must not conflict, and maximum values must match across layers.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Invalid-schedule handling and concrete schedules are unspecified, so the exact case matrix remains open even though its elevated nature is clear.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified2Pre-existing blob-limit, excess-blob-gas, blob-fee, and fork-boundary tests must be reworked to select parameters from successive BPO schedule entries. This is a considerable but blob-confined category rather than a diverse majority of execution tests, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification and Requirements, lines 42-48 and 83-90 Existing blob parameters may change at any number of new timestamped boundaries, and execution/consensus schedules must align, avoid conflicts, and carry equal maximum values.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Concrete schedules are outside scope, so the exact number of affected vectors cannot be determined from this revision.
Security risksUnder-specified2Despite the draft's conclusion, an incorrect or inconsistent implementation touches the limited but critical set of EL/CL schedule selection and blob-limit validation components and can make the layers or clients disagree at activation. This warrants targeted review and cross-client negative testing, matching score 2 rather than an extensive multi-component redesign.
  • eip.md · Requirements, lines 85-90 Execution and consensus clients must share schedules, avoid conflicting forks, align timestamp and epoch boundaries, and agree on maximum blobs.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 109-115 The draft states that no security risks had been identified at the cutoff.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Concrete capacity values and behavior for invalid configurations are absent, so their validator/network safety implications cannot be fully assessed.
Cross-EIP interactions2Interacting EIPs are EIP-7840 (the schedule format directly extended), EIP-7594 (the DA/networking mechanism whose observed capacity informs BPO increases), and EIP-4844 (the underlying blob mechanism whose parameters are changed). Coordinated schedule, boundary, blob-accounting, and DA-capacity testing is required, but the interactions remain confined to the blob stack, matching score 2; there are no additional EIPs beyond the first three for an uncapped increment.
  • eip.md · Front matter, Motivation, and Specification, lines 10 and 32-48 EIP-7892 requires and extends EIP-7840 and identifies EIP-7594 as the scaling technology motivating staged blob-capacity adjustment.
  • supporting/eip-7594.md · Front matter and Specification, lines 11 and 24-30 EIP-7594 itself builds on EIP-4844 blobs and applies per-blob-row networking and availability work, linking capacity changes to both mechanisms.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The proposal's direct normative dependency is only EIP-7840; its interaction with EIP-7594 and EIP-4844 is architectural and motivational rather than a new normative dependency.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7840, EIP-7594, EIP-4844
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Clients need common baselines for missing/incomplete entries, invalid alignment, schedule conflicts, and mismatched layer values before negative and boundary tests can assert results. These gaps are localized to schedule configuration and activation, fitting score 2 rather than a pervasive new consensus-observability problem.
  • eip.md · Specification and Requirements, lines 83-90 Values and schedules are illustrative, while consistency, non-conflict, alignment, and equality are required without defining failure handling or what constitutes a conflict.
  • supporting/eip-7840.md · Specification, lines 46-48 Missing or incomplete blobSchedule configuration is expressly undefined, and clients are free to choose how to handle it.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The sealed package contains no discussion-thread or implementation evidence showing whether these draft questions had converged by the cutoff.
Blob gas accounting changes1The blob target and update fraction are parameters of the existing blob-gas pricing mechanism, and the blob limit constrains existing blob processing. This updates the existing mechanism without introducing a new accounting mechanism, matching score 1.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 A BPO fork may change the blob target, maximum blob count, and baseFeeUpdateFraction at scheduled timestamps.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The actual values and schedules are not specified, but that does not change the kind of accounting mechanism affected.
Show 20 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 The exhaustive set of permitted BPO changes contains only blob parameters and no new EVM instruction.
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 Blob parameter changes do not specify any alteration to an existing opcode's result or behavior.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 The proposal's allowed changes are confined to blob parameters and do not define a precompile.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile logic or gas accounting is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 No precompile logic or gas schedule appears among the permitted BPO parameter changes.
Added system contracts0No system contract, stateful or otherwise, is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-81 The complete mechanism is expressed through blob parameters and client configuration and contains no contract deployment.
Modified system contracts0No pre-existing system-contract code, state, or behavior is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-81 The parameter schedule has no specified direct or indirect system-contract action.
EVM Gas rule changes0The proposal changes blob-specific parameters, not EVM execution-gas accounting, so it meets the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 BPO forks are restricted to the blob target, blob limit, and blob base-fee update fraction, implemented through the blob schedule.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0Nothing moves a state access or a gas charge within opcode execution, so no state-access ordering change is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 The exhaustive BPO change set contains only three blob parameters and no opcode-execution or state-access rule.
State gas accounting changes0The proposal does not alter state-gas costs, charging sites, budgets, reservoirs, or spill behavior and therefore meets the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 The permitted changes are exclusively blob-capacity and blob-fee parameters; no state-write cost or budget is introduced.
New EVM gas refund0No new EVM gas-refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 The defined mechanism changes only blob target, limit, and fee-update parameters and contains no refund rule.
New transaction types0No new transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 The EIP adjusts blob-related parameters but defines no transaction envelope or transaction type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0A scheduled block blob limit is not a change to transaction validity or intrinsic gas as defined by this anchor. The proposal specifies no such transaction-level mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-90 The maximum applies to blobs per block and the normative requirements concern schedule consistency; no per-transaction validity or intrinsic-gas rule is stated.
New block / header fields0No block or header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 48-81 The new schedule entries live in execution and consensus node configuration rather than in a block or block header.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Configuration syntax is not an RLP/SSZ transaction, block, or interface encoding change under this anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 48-81 New values are represented in node configuration schedules; no transaction, block, or interface serialization is changed.
Block syncing changes0Although blob-count validation can vary by schedule, no new block RLP validation mechanism is introduced, which is the rubric's syncing trigger.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-81 The proposal changes configured blob parameters at time/epoch boundaries and introduces no block RLP field or RLP decoding rule.
Engine API changes0The design intentionally uses configuration instead of Engine API communication, so no Engine API field, endpoint, or mechanism is introduced.
  • supporting/eip-7840.md · Motivation and Specification, lines 19-29 EIP-7840 places blob parameters in client configuration specifically to avoid a complex Engine API handshake.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 48-81 EIP-7892 extends configuration schedules and adds consensus configuration, without specifying an Engine API field or endpoint.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified0A client configuration extension is not, by itself, a transition-tool interface change. The historical text mandates no new transition-tool field or mechanism, so the best-supported score is 0.
  • eip.md · Specification and Rationale, lines 48-81 and 98-100 Parameter schedules are placed in execution- and consensus-client configuration; no transition-tool request or response field is defined.
Uncertainty: How test transition tools receive or model arbitrary BPO schedules is not specified.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Tests specifically exercising BPO schedules need these checks, but the text does not make tests unrelated to the EIP additionally assert a new produced value. The zero anchor therefore applies.
  • eip.md · Requirements, lines 85-90 The new equality and alignment requirements concern the BPO configuration itself rather than outputs that every unrelated fork test must assert.
Uncertainty: The proposal does not specify a test-suite integration model, but it defines no universal per-test assertion.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified0The EIP supplies configuration data rather than a new test-framework abstraction. On the available text, existing primitives can consume varied configurations, so score 0 is best supported.
  • eip.md · Rationale, lines 98-100 External configuration is intended to let testing teams vary parameters, but the proposal defines no expectation, modifier, or helper primitive.
Uncertainty: The historical proposal contains no test-framework design, so a later need for a reusable schedule modifier cannot be excluded.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or modified by EIP-7892.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 42-48 The change set consists solely of numeric blob parameters and schedule entries, with no cryptographic construction or operation.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@216ebd2f32 EIPS/eip-7892.md committed 2025-03-24 · information cutoff 2025-03-25T15:44:57Z
Current master · File history · blob 6076cad2ad · sha256 78546589d5ce
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-7892.yaml · sha256 daec0686fe3e
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-7594.md, supporting/eip-7840.md
Compare EIP-7892 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 · 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 · 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.

  • 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 · 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.