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 14
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. EIP-7892 (Informational, Draft at the assessed revision) defines Blob Parameter Only (BPO) hard forks. These hard forks change only the blob target, the blob limit (max) and baseFeeUpdateFraction. On the execution layer, it extends the EIP-7840 `blobSchedule` client-configuration object so that, besides named forks, it accepts any number of block-timestamp keys at which these parameters may change. On the consensus layer, it adds a `BPO_FORK` epoch/max_blobs configuration. EL and CL schedules must agree: timestamps must align with epoch starts and `max` must equal `max_blobs`. Actual values and schedules are out of scope, and the EIP specifies no new opcode, transaction, header field, Engine API or state-transition change.

14MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 8 criteria affected
Plausible range
10–24 (Low–Medium–High)
Assessment cutoff
2025-03-25 · EIP revision 216ebd2f32 (2025-03-24)
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. New test-framework primitives2
  2. Edge/boundary conditions2
  3. Cross-EIP interactions2
  4. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: The revision does not define how blob parameter changes apply to excess blob gas and blob base fee across a BPO boundary. It also does not define how timestamp keys resolve against named-fork keys, what counts as a conflict with other fork schedules, or whether BPO forks count as forks for fork-scoped mechanisms such as fork IDs or Engine API versioning. The CL config gives only max_blobs, and the illustrative example contradicts the max-equality requirement.

Plausible total

10–24
recorded score 14 · plausible tiers Low, Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • For the first block at or after a BPO timestamp, is excess_blob_gas computed with the parent's target or the new target, and does the new baseFeeUpdateFraction apply to that block's blob base fee?
  • How are timestamp-keyed entries ordered against named-fork entries, and what does 'MUST NOT conflict with other fork schedules' prohibit?
  • Does a BPO fork change the fork identifier or any fork-versioned interface (Engine API method versions, t8n fork names)?
  • How should clients handle a timestamp entry that omits target or baseFeeUpdateFraction, given that the CL config carries only max_blobs?
  • The illustrative CL max_blobs (24) differs from the EL max (48) at the first BPO entry, which contradicts the stated equality requirement.
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The illustrative example breaks the requirement that EL max equal CL max_blobs (48 vs 24 for the first BPO entry).
  • The EIP is typed Informational but implies consensus-relevant parameter switching on the EL.
  • The boundary semantics for excess blob gas and the blob base fee update fraction are unspecified.
  • No concrete values are given, so testing work for real capacity changes depends on future configuration.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7892 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified2The framework needs a new construction abstraction: a parameter-only fork, or a fork transition at an arbitrary timestamp, defined by (target, max, fraction), possibly several in a row. Blob tests then have to be generated against it and the schedule emitted into client configuration. This sits within the blob-related test suite, so level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — blobSchedule example with "1740693335" keys Forks can be defined by timestamp and a parameter set rather than by a named fork.
  • eip.md · Rationale — "Testing teams can investigate different parameters with minimal involvement from client implementers" Testing different parameter sets is an explicit goal.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If fork representation is shared across all families and BPO forks require changing it globally, this could reach 3. A plain parameterized fork may only need a local extension (1).
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified2Several boundary-sensitive rules change at each BPO timestamp. (1) The per-block blob-count limit switches to the new max, so blob counts at old max, new max and new max+1 must be tested before and after the boundary. (2) The excess blob gas calculation switches to the new target, including the first block after the boundary. (3) The blob base fee update fraction switches. Consecutive BPO entries and BPO entries next to named forks add cases. These can mostly be tested per parameter, with no clearly elevated matrix, so level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — "block timestamps at which these parameters MAY change" Parameter switching happens at a timestamp boundary.
  • eip.md · Requirements — "timestamp ... MUST align with the start of the epoch" Activation timestamps are tied to epoch boundaries.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The rule for computing excess blob gas across the boundary is unspecified. If target and fraction combine with the boundary block in result-changing ways, an elevated matrix could apply.
Cross-EIP interactions2EIP-7840 needs coordinated cases. Schedules that mix named-fork entries (cancun, prague, osaka) with timestamp entries must resolve to the correct parameters, including BPO entries right after a named fork and several BPO entries in a row. Blob pricing rules from the 4844 lineage (excess blob gas, base fee fraction) must be exercised across BPO boundaries. EIP-7594 needs only a local compatibility check. Level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — "the blobSchedule object specified in EIP-7840 is extended" BPO directly extends EIP-7840's per-fork schedule with timestamp keys.
  • eip.md · Motivation — "Major scaling upgrades (e.g. EIP-7594)" PeerDAS is cited as the reason blob limits are uncertain; there is no EL coupling.
  • supporting/eip-7594.md · Specification PeerDAS is described as CL networking/DAS; the supplied text gives no EL rule.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: EIP-4844's blob gas rules are not supplied. Their interaction across BPO boundaries is noted, but its exact semantics are unconfirmed.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7840, EIP-7594
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2Several localized outcomes are open and have competing interpretations. (1) Which target and fraction apply when computing excess blob gas and blob base fee in the first block at or after a BPO timestamp. (2) How timestamp entries resolve against named-fork entries and whether "conflict" means equal timestamps. (3) Whether a BPO fork is a fork for fork-ID or other fork-scoped purposes. Expected results cannot be fixed without agreement. The outcomes are localized to blob parameters and do not require re-baselining across families, so level 2.
  • eip.md · Specification — "extended to allow for an arbitrary number of block timestamps" Gives no rule for how parameter changes apply to the excess blob gas computation of the first post-boundary block, or how timestamp keys order against named-fork keys.
  • eip.md · Requirements — "BPO forks MUST NOT conflict with other fork schedules" "Conflict" is undefined (e.g., a BPO timestamp equal to a named fork's activation).
  • eip.md · Specification — CL config "BPO_FORK: 348618 24" vs EL "max": 48 The illustrative example contradicts the requirement that max equals max_blobs, and the CL config carries no target or fraction.
  • supporting/eip-7840.md · Specification — "The behavior when the configuration is missing or incomplete for a fork is undefined" Inherited: behavior for missing or partial entries is left to clients.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The underlying excess-blob-gas formula from EIP-4844 is not supplied and may settle the boundary question. The example inconsistency may simply be illustrative.
Blob gas accounting changesUnder-specified1Existing blob-gas accounting (excess blob gas from target, blob base fee from the update fraction, per-block max) keeps its rules, but its parameters can now change at any scheduled timestamp. That fits level 1: existing parameters change without a new accounting mechanism. Tests must confirm that the parameters switch at each BPO timestamp.
  • eip.md · Specification — "blob_target", "blob_limit", "baseFeeUpdateFraction" Blob target, max and base fee update fraction may change at arbitrary timestamps.
  • supporting/eip-7840.md · Specification — "Clients must configure the target, max and baseFeeUpdateFraction per-fork" The baseline already has per-fork blob parameters; BPO adds timestamp-keyed entries.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP does not say how excess blob gas is computed for the first block after a BPO boundary (parent's or child's target, and whether anything is reset). If a special transition rule were needed, this could be read as a new mechanism (level 2).
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms1Blob-transaction eligibility in a block depends on the block's blob limit and on max_fee_per_blob_gas against the blob base fee. Both now use timestamp-scheduled parameters. Only existing bounds and parameters change, so level 1.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Blob Limit (blob_limit)" and "baseFeeUpdateFraction" The blob limit and blob fee parameters that bound blob-transaction inclusion change on a schedule.
Confidence: Medium
Block syncing changesUnder-specified1Block import must apply the scheduled max (blob gas used limit) and target (excess_blob_gas header check) according to the block timestamp. The rules are unchanged and only parameter selection changes, so this is scored conservatively at level 1: one changed local validation dimension that sync/import tests across BPO boundaries must exercise.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Blob Limit (blob_limit): The maximum number of blobs per block" Block-level blob limit validation depends on the timestamp schedule.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: If parameter-only changes are not treated as rule changes, the score would be 0. If both the blob-gas-used limit and the parent-dependent excess_blob_gas check count as changed rules, it could be scored up to 3.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified1To test BPO behavior, the transition tool must receive the blob schedule, including timestamp-keyed entries, or an equivalent fork/parameter input, because the parameters are no longer fixed by fork name. That is one semantic input (the blob schedule/parameter set) without a new exchange mechanism, so level 1.
  • eip.md · Rationale — "Why specify parameters in the node configuration instead of code?" Blob parameters come from external configuration rather than code, so test tooling must supply them.
  • eip.md · Specification — "extended to allow for an arbitrary number of block timestamps" Parameters depend on timestamp-keyed schedule entries, not only on the named fork.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: No t8n interface evidence is supplied. If the tool already takes a blob schedule, the change could be 0. If it needs separate target/max/fraction fields plus timestamp-based selection logic, it could be 2.
Security risksUnder-specified1The new failure mode is EL/CL schedule mismatch: a different max or misaligned timestamp makes the EL reject blocks the CL accepts, or the reverse. Correct switching can be checked locally against configuration, so level 1.
  • eip.md · Requirements — "Execution and consensus clients MUST share consistent BPO fork schedules" Safety depends on the EL and CL schedules matching.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "No security risks have been identified." The EIP claims no security risk.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EL/CL consistency invariant could be read as a bounded cross-component interaction needing targeted integration review (2).
Performance risksUnder-specified1Raised blob limits would increase EL blob-handling workload (blob transaction processing and block blob counts), which calls for benchmarking at configured limits. This revision sets no values, so only component-level validation of the parameterised workload is established (level 1).
  • eip.md · Motivation — "BPO forks allow developers to safely increase parameters after observing mainnet performance" The mechanism exists to raise blob capacity incrementally.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Actual values and schedules are beyond the scope" No concrete capacity bound is set.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: The real performance work depends on future concrete values, which could require integrated benchmarks (2).
Show 18 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction is added.
Modified opcodes0BLOBBASEFEE returns values computed under the new parameters, but its semantics are unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification Only parameters change; BLOBBASEFEE/BLOBHASH semantics are unchanged.
Added precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is added.
Modified precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification The point evaluation precompile is not mentioned.
Added system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is referenced.
EVM Gas rule changes0The EIP changes no execution-gas charging, metering or limit rule.
  • eip.md · Specification — "only modifies any of the following blob-related parameters" Only blob target, blob limit and blob base fee update fraction are in scope; execution gas is untouched.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's state access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction semantics or access ordering are mentioned; the changes are limited to blob parameters.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting change.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-write accounting is mentioned.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is introduced.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction type is introduced.
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header member is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Client config JSON is not a transaction, block, receipt, Engine API, peer-message or proof codec. The CL config is CL-only.
  • eip.md · Specification — blobSchedule JSON The only schema change is to a client configuration file, which is not a listed object or interface.
New fork activation mechanism0Rule/constant selection at a timestamp is explicitly excluded from this criterion.
  • eip.md · Specification Activation only selects parameters; there is no state migration or code installation.
Engine API changesUnder-specified0No Engine API field or endpoint changes are specified.
  • eip.md · Rationale — "avoiding the need for this boilerplate code" BPO forks are meant to avoid the usual fork machinery; no Engine API change is specified.
  • supporting/eip-7840.md · Motivation — "avoid complex handshake over engine API" Blob parameters are passed through configuration, not the Engine API.
Uncertainty: The EIP does not say whether a BPO fork changes Engine API method-version selection. It implies not.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0The EIP is a scheduling mechanism and sets no values. Baseline Cancun/Prague blob tests keep their inputs and expected results. Tests that need new values belong to whichever future fork sets them.
  • eip.md · Specification — "The parameters and schedules above are purely illustrative" The EIP sets no concrete parameter values, so baseline blob parameters are unchanged unless a schedule is configured.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "no backwards compatibility concerns" Existing behavior is preserved.
Uncertainty: If an Osaka schedule with concrete BPO values were adopted, blob-limit and blob-fee tests that assume fork-constant parameters would need parameterisation. This revision specifies no such values.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0No new output needs asserting in baseline tests.
  • eip.md · Specification No new header, receipt, log or storage output is introduced.
Cryptography0KZG and other cryptographic verification is unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification No cryptographic rule is changed.
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 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-7892.yaml · sha256 0c6651e84f48
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
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 · 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.