Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7906: Transaction Assertions via State Diff Opcode

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

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-08-25PFI at snapshotLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 28
Human Available in open PRscore 23 · Checklist revision 2· ethspecs/pm #132
LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-26 · Original snapshot · 28Human · Checklist revision 2Available in open PR · 23CompareHuman vs LLM · same checklist revision

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

Scope at the cutoff. Draft execution-layer proposal adding a POST_TX frame mode to EIP-8141 and three EVM opcodes—TXTRACE, TXDIFF, and EVENTDATACOPY—to expose transaction-local state differences and events to assertion contracts. The assessment covers only behavior and evidence sealed in this package.

28HighHigh
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 10 criteria affected
Plausible range
24–30 (High)
Snapshot
2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)
Score bands · Checklist revision 2
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. Cross-EIP interactions4
  2. Added opcodes3
  3. EVM Gas rule changes3
  4. Security risks3

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: Material consensus details remain open: opcode byte assignments and stack/error behavior are incomplete; two gas constants are TBD; state-access and exceptional-halt ordering is not comprehensive; and POST_TX rollback/receipt semantics are not fully reconciled with EIP-8141. These gaps make constructible state-diff and failure cases impossible to baseline authoritatively from the snapshot alone.

Plausible total

24–30
recorded score 28 · plausible tiers High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (7)
  • Which opcode byte is assigned to each of TXTRACE, TXDIFF, and EVENTDATACOPY, and what are the exact stack pop/push conventions for TXTRACE and TXDIFF?
  • What final values replace TXTRACE_GAS_COST and EVENTDATACOPY_GAS_COST, and is EVENTDATACOPY_GAS_COST the fixed base in addition to copying and memory expansion?
  • For every opcode, when are gas charged, live state read, EIP-2929 warmth updated, and EIP-7928 access recorded relative to invalid params, reserved operands, out-of-range indices, and insufficient gas?
  • What happens for undefined TXTRACE/TXDIFF params and for out-of-range TXTRACE indices other than the event-topic cases explicitly called out?
  • Exactly which frames and effects constitute the validation prefix and execution body when a POST_TX frame fails, especially for frames after payer approval but before the POST_TX suffix?
  • How is a failed POST_TX outcome represented in the EIP-8141 per-frame receipt format, which has no transaction-level status?
  • Which fee-settlement, reverted-call, restored-write, and log states are included in each trace table at the moment an assertion executes?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • EIP-7906 says POST_TX failure generates a receipt with status = 0, while required EIP-8141 defines only per-frame statuses and explicitly no transaction-level status.
  • The constants table leaves EVENTDATACOPY_GAS_COST TBD, while the later opcode section says its fixed cost is 3 plus copying and memory expansion.
  • The phrase 'execution body ... up to the validation prefix' does not precisely partition all possible EIP-8141 frames around payer approval.
  • TXTRACE enumerates events and net state changes but does not comprehensively state treatment of reverted subcalls, restored writes, fee settlement, and intermediate POST_TX-frame observations.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7906 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactionsExceptional4Six identified EIPs create coordinated test axes: EIP-8141 frame validity/rollback/payment, EIP-2929 warm/cold access, EIP-7928 BAL recording, EIP-4844 blob pre-charge, EIP-7702 deployment classification, and EIP-1559 context/fee behavior. Strong interdependence gives base score 3, plus one point for the three interactions beyond the first three, for score 4.

Exceptional score: Score 4 is warranted by the rubric's uncapped formula: six package-grounded interacting EIPs are three beyond the first three, adding +1 to the base score of 3. The interactions span separate consensus-sensitive dimensions rather than repeated references to one mechanism.

  • eip.md · Front matter requires; Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode; Backwards Compatibility The proposal requires EIPs 2929 and 8141, directly amends EIP-8141 frame semantics, and restricts all new opcodes to the new EIP-8141 mode.
  • eip.md · Specification > Transaction Diff Lookup Opcode > Gas Cost TXDIFF uses EIP-2929 warmth and, where active, must record accesses in the EIP-7928 block-level access list.
  • eip.md · Specification > Transaction Trace Opcode > State Difference Semantics; Rationale > Gas Pre-Charge Parameter Deployment enumeration excludes EIP-7702 designators; gas_pre_charge covers EIP-4844 blob fees and identifies the EIP-8141 payer; EIP-1559 and legacy contexts reject the opcodes.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The interaction list includes only EIPs explicitly grounded in the sealed package and requiring distinct cases; no external or latent interaction was added.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-1559, EIP-2929, EIP-4844, EIP-7702, EIP-7928, EIP-8141
Added opcodesUnder-specified3Three opcodes are added and all have complex mechanics or dynamic gas/data behavior; this directly matches score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification > Transaction Trace Opcode; Transaction Diff Lookup Opcode; EVENTDATACOPY opcode The proposal introduces TXTRACE, TXDIFF, and EVENTDATACOPY. They have multi-operand parameter spaces, dynamic cold/warm or memory/copy gas, indexed state/event data, and exceptional-halt branches.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The opcode byte values and complete stack/error definitions are missing, but the number and complexity class of the proposed opcodes are clear.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified3The proposal adds several opcode-specific gas rules, including dynamic memory/copy charging and state-dependent cold/warm charging. TXDIFF also changes shared warmness, so it can change the gas charged by later existing operations; this reaches score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification > Transaction Diff Lookup Opcode > Gas Cost TXDIFF params 0x00–0x05 use EIP-2929 cold/warm costs and add the queried address or slot to the shared access list after the call.
  • eip.md · Specification > Results Ordering > EVENTDATACOPY opcode EVENTDATACOPY uses CALLDATACOPY-style fixed, copying, and memory-expansion charges.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: TXTRACE_GAS_COST and the constants-table EVENTDATACOPY_GAS_COST remain TBD, and no opcode-wide charge/error ordering is fully specified.
Security risksUnder-specified3The mechanism spans critical transaction validity, rollback, gas payment, wallet authorization, contract immutability, and adversarial resource exhaustion. Incorrect implementation or integration could compromise users or create DoS behavior, requiring extensive review and fuzzing; score 3.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Insufficiently Restrictive Assertions; Enforcing POST_TX Frame Inclusion Incomplete assertions can create a false sense of safety; wallets must require the intended POST_TX frame and an immutable assertion target to avoid bypass or same-transaction upgrade attacks.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Assertion Gas Exhaustion; The POST_TX Frame Mode Not Reverting Validation Prefix Attacker-controlled enumeration can exhaust assertion gas, and POST_TX failure preserves the validation prefix and gas payment, leaving deploy-frame side effects outside rollback.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Some risks depend on wallet/assertion construction, but the protocol's rollback and gas-exhaustion surfaces are independently security-critical.
Performance risksUnder-specified3Transaction-wide diff capture and canonical enumeration cannot be validated only as an isolated opcode microbenchmark; they interact with state journaling, reverts, logs, access lists, and worst-case transaction contents. The stated event scale and attacker-controlled padding create substantial benchmark impact, reaching score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification > State Difference Semantics; Results Ordering Clients must expose transaction-prestate versus current values, collapse repeated writes, maintain per-address views, enumerate events, and deterministically sort address and slot changes.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Assertion Gas Exhaustion The proposal states that a transaction can produce about 42,600 events and that full enumeration requires significant gas; unrelated events may be attacker-controlled.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package gives no client data-structure design or benchmarks, and the flat TXTRACE gas cost is TBD, so the exact overhead is unknown.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Multiple independent boundary-prone mechanisms require an elevated matrix: params and indices, empty/restored/deployed state, event topic/data limits, warm/cold accesses, POST_TX placement, failure kind, and rollback scope. This meets score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification > Transaction Trace Opcode; Transaction Diff Lookup Opcode > Params; Reserved Inputs The opcodes expose many parameter domains, must-be-zero operands, indexed tables, 0–4 event topics, local-to-global remapping, bit flags, and exceptional-halt cases.
  • eip.md · Specification > Results Ordering > EVENTDATACOPY opcode Copy behavior adds event-index and data-range boundaries plus memory expansion and variable-length data.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode POST_TX adds suffix boundaries, multiple-frame composition, STATICCALL violations, ordinary reverts, exceptional halts, atomic-batch override, validation-prefix persistence, and failed-receipt outcomes.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Several boundary outcomes are themselves unspecified, increasing coordination risk but not counted again as extra edge mechanisms.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified3Previously internal transaction-prestate/current-state, event, access, fee, and rollback details become directly observable and consensus-critical. Multiple constructible cases lack determined outcomes or constants, and the receipt/rollback text is not fully reconciled with the required frame transaction; this meets score 3.
  • eip.md · Specification > Constants TXTRACE_GAS_COST and EVENTDATACOPY_GAS_COST are TBD, and the proposal supplies no opcode byte constants for TXTRACE, TXDIFF, or EVENTDATACOPY.
  • eip.md · Specification > Transaction Trace Opcode; Reserved Inputs; EVENTDATACOPY opcode TXTRACE's general invalid-param/index behavior and several charge/access/error orderings are not defined, while EVENTDATACOPY defines only selected out-of-bounds cases.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode The text says a POST_TX failure yields a receipt with status=0 and reverts the execution body up to the validation prefix.
  • supporting/eip-8141.md · Specification > Frame Transaction > Receipt Encoding EIP-8141 defines per-frame statuses and explicitly carries no transaction-level status, leaving the EIP-7906 failed-receipt statement unreconciled.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The score is based solely on visible Draft/TBD and normative gaps; prohibited implementation, devnet, discussion-thread, or later-revision evidence was not consulted.
State-access ordering within opcode executionUnder-specified2TXDIFF is a new state-accessing operation whose gas validation, live-state read, warmness update, and BAL recording position must be fixed. This matches the score-2 anchor for a new state-accessing operation whose ordering must be settled.
  • eip.md · Specification > Transaction Diff Lookup Opcode > Gas Cost For TXDIFF params 0x00–0x05, cost depends on pre-call warmness; the address or slot is added to EIP-2929 access lists after the call and recorded in the EIP-7928 BAL where active.
  • supporting/eip-7928.md · Specification > Gas Validation Before State Access BAL inclusion is consensus-critical at gas boundaries: pre-state validation must pass before the target is accessed and recorded.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The draft says the access-list addition occurs after the call but does not define ordering for invalid params, reserved operands, failed reads, or insufficient gas.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified2The proposal modifies validity and failure classification for an existing transaction type. Updates are substantial but localized to frame mode validation and POST_TX execution, with no demonstrated test-infrastructure redesign, fitting score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode Mode 3 becomes valid, POST_TX frames must be a contiguous suffix, violations invalidate the transaction, and POST_TX failure reverts execution while leaving the transaction valid with a failed outcome.
  • supporting/eip-8141.md · Specification > Frame Transaction > Constraints; Behavior The parent proposal previously requires mode < 3, treats VERIFY failure as transaction-invalid, and defines atomic-batch rollback and payer approval.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The exact execution-body rollback boundary and failed-receipt representation are not fully reconciled with EIP-8141.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified2A considerable but specialized category of pre-existing frame-transaction and opcode-context tests must be reworked for a fourth mode, a trailing-suffix rule, and failure semantics that override atomic batches. The affected category is contrived to EIP-8141/frame execution, fitting score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode The proposal amends EIP-8141 mode validity, frame ordering, caller/static behavior, atomic-batch rollback, transaction validity, gas payment, and failure receipt behavior.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility All three opcodes are restricted to EIP-8141 POST_TX frames and halt exceptionally in legacy, EIP-1559, and other frame modes.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The sealed package contains no test inventory, so the size of the pre-existing EIP-8141 test subset is inferred only from the normative amendments.
Show 18 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal explicitly states that no changes are made to existing opcodes.
Uncertainty: Sharing EIP-2929 warmth with TXDIFF affects later gas, scored under gas and access ordering rather than as a result change to an existing opcode.
Added precompiles0No precompile is added.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal explicitly states that no changes are made to precompiles.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed package.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile logic or gas schedule is modified.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal explicitly states that no changes are made to precompiles.
Uncertainty: None material in the sealed package.
Added system contracts0The assertion contracts are user-selected contracts, not new system contracts.
  • eip.md · Rationale > The POST_TX Frame Mode Requirement Assertion providers execute their own assertion logic in ordinary POST_TX frames; no protocol-installed contract or fixed system address is specified.
Uncertainty: The EIP recommends immutable assertion targets but does not mandate deployment of a system contract.
Modified system contracts0No pre-existing system contract is directly or indirectly modified by a specified transition.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode POST_TX targets are dispatched as EIP-8141 frames and the proposal does not alter code or state of any named system contract.
Uncertainty: Ordinary contracts may opt into assertions, but that application behavior is not a system-contract modification.
Blob gas accounting changes0EIP-7906 exposes an already-computed blob fee through TXTRACE but does not alter blob-gas charging, limits, base-fee calculation, or refund behavior.
  • eip.md · Specification > Transaction Trace Opcode For blob transactions, gas_pre_charge reports the existing blob-fee component as blob_count × GAS_PER_BLOB × blob_base_fee.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification > Gas accounting EIP-4844 already defines blob gas, GAS_PER_BLOB, and blob fee calculation.
Uncertainty: The exposed gas_pre_charge value is underspecified in other respects, but the package contains no blob-gas accounting change.
State gas accounting changes0The proposal observes state differences but introduces no state write, state-gas charging site, state budget change, or spill/reservoir rule.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode POST_TX executes as STATICCALL and disallows state manipulation, including the APPROVE exception.
  • eip.md · Specification > Transaction Diff Lookup Opcode > Gas Cost The new opcode costs are EIP-2929 execution-gas access charges or a flat TXTRACE cost, not state-gas charges.
Uncertainty: This is limited to EIP-7906; the underlying EIP-8141 transaction already has a separate state-gas model.
New EVM gas refund0No new EVM gas-refund counter rule or refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Rationale > Gas Pre-Charge Parameter The text describes the ordinary refund of unused prepaid gas as provisional fee settlement; it does not define a new refund mechanism.
Uncertainty: The exact fee view visible during POST_TX is ambiguous, but that does not itself add a refund mechanism.
New transaction types0No new transaction envelope or transaction-type byte is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode; Backwards Compatibility The proposal amends the existing EIP-8141 frame transaction and explicitly states that it introduces no new transaction type.
Uncertainty: The feature has a hard dependency on the separate EIP-8141 transaction type.
New block / header fields0No new block or block-header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification The proposal defines frame and opcode behavior only and introduces no block or header field.
Uncertainty: BAL recording uses the field already proposed by EIP-7928; EIP-7906 does not add another one.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Adding a semantic value to an existing scalar field is a validity change, not an RLP/SSZ encoding change under this anchor.
  • supporting/eip-8141.md · Specification > Frame Transaction > Payload Encoding EIP-8141 already RLP-encodes mode inside each frame.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode EIP-7906 extends the accepted numeric domain from mode < 3 to mode < 4 without changing the RLP shape or encoding.
Uncertainty: The statement that a failed frame transaction generates a status=0 receipt is ambiguous against EIP-8141, but no replacement receipt encoding is specified.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP validation mechanism requiring sync testing is introduced.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal lists opcode and frame-execution changes and states that existing transaction types are unchanged; it defines no block RLP validation change.
Uncertainty: EIP-7928 BAL recording is an interaction of state accesses, not a block-sync format change made by EIP-7906.
New fork activation mechanism0Ordinary fork gating of opcodes and validity rules is not a new activation mechanism under the rubric.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode; Backwards Compatibility The behavior applies wherever EIP-7906 is active, but no activation-block state transition or modification of an existing internal variable is defined.
Uncertainty: Opcode byte assignments remain unspecified, but no activation-time state mutation is proposed.
Engine API changes0No Engine API change is introduced by this proposal.
  • eip.md · Specification The normative changes are confined to EIP-8141 frame processing and EVM opcodes; no Engine API field, version, or endpoint is defined.
Uncertainty: EIP-7928 has Engine API changes, but EIP-7906 only records compatible accesses into its BAL and does not modify that interface.
Transition-tool interface changes0The package supports an extension of an existing encoded field's accepted values, not a new transition-tool interface field or mechanism.
  • supporting/eip-8141.md · Specification > Frame Transaction > Payload Encoding The existing frame payload already carries a numeric mode field inside each frame.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode EIP-7906 admits one additional value in that existing mode field; it does not define a new external transition-tool field.
Uncertainty: No transition-tool design is included in the sealed evidence; the score reflects only explicit interface changes in the proposal.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0The proposal changes targeted frame-transaction logic, but it does not add a mechanically required output that unrelated pre-existing tests must additionally assert.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The new opcodes occupy unused slots, are unavailable outside POST_TX, and make no changes to existing opcodes, transaction types, or precompiles.
Uncertainty: EIP-8141-specific tests are reworked under the preceding anchor; no package evidence requires a new assertion across unrelated tests.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified0The sealed specification does not establish a need for a new reusable expectation, modifier, or framework-level abstraction beyond existing transaction/frame construction and EVM execution assertions.
  • eip.md · Specification > The POST_TX Frame Mode; Transaction Trace Opcode; Transaction Diff Lookup Opcode; EVENTDATACOPY opcode The proposal's cases are expressible as frame transactions plus EVM bytecode invoking numeric opcode parameters and checking execution outcomes.
Uncertainty: The package contains no test-framework design or tests, so a minor helper extension may prove useful even though none is demonstrated as required.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism is added or modified.
  • eip.md · Abstract; Specification > Transaction Trace Opcode The feature exposes transaction outcomes, state differences, and event data; it defines no cryptographic primitive or verification rule.
Uncertainty: Code hashes are returned as state data, but computing or validating a new cryptographic construction is outside this proposal.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-7906.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 799d721e74 · sha256 0a621cf6154e
Rubric
Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator
gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/08-hegota-prospective-complexity-assessment/outputs/assessments/hegota-pfi-2026-08-26/eip-7906.yaml · sha256 52daf889b96d
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-1559.md, supporting/eip-2929.md, supporting/eip-4844.md, supporting/eip-7702.md, supporting/eip-7928.md, supporting/eip-8141.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

23HighHigh
Evaluator
HumanChecklist v2
Confidence
Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published
2026-08-24
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 Human total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

  1. Cross-EIP interactions4
  2. Added opcodes3
  3. Edge/boundary conditions3
  4. State-access ordering within opcode execution2

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7906 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreNotes
Cross-EIP interactionsExceptional4Strong interdependencies. **EIP-8141** is a hard dependency that this EIP *amends* — nothing here is testable without it, and EIP-8141 is itself Draft and assessed 🔴 38. **EIP-2929** (pricing, and `TXDIFF` mutates the access list), **EIP-7928** (BAL recording for live-state reads), **EIP-7702** (designators excluded from `contracts_deployed`), **EIP-4844** (blob fees folded into `gas_pre_charge`). <br><br>The "valid only inside a `POST_TX` frame" restriction then pulls in every transaction type as a negative case: the three opcodes must be shown to halt in legacy, **EIP-2930**, **EIP-1559**, **EIP-4844** and **EIP-7702** transactions, and in the `DEFAULT`, `VERIFY` and `SENDER` frame modes — roughly 3 x 8 coordinated cases, each owned by a different EIP's transaction format. With **EIP-2718** framing those types, 8 interacting EIPs gives +1 for 5 beyond the first 3.—
Added opcodes3Three new opcodes, at least one complex: `TXTRACE` (22 params), `TXDIFF` (11 params, dynamic warm/cold gas), `EVENTDATACOPY` (4 stack inputs, memory expansion, `CALLDATACOPY` semantics).—
Edge/boundary conditions3Elevated case counts. `TXTRACE` has 22 params and `TXDIFF` 11, each with index bounds; every *must be 0* operand halts on non-zero; `event_topic0`–`3` halt past `event_topic_count`; `EVENTDATACOPY` halts on both out-of-range index and `dataOffset + length`. Plus net-zero collapsing (modified-then-restored sets no entry and no flag bit), canonical uint160/uint256 sort order, `CREATE` leaving empty code, and EIP-7702 designators excluded from `contracts_deployed`.—
State-access ordering within opcode execution2New state-accessing operations whose position must be settled per param. `TXDIFF` 0x00–0x05 read live state and record in the EIP-7928 BAL; 0x06–0x0A answer from the diff and touch neither. Each of the 11 params needs its access-list and BAL behaviour verified.—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2Amends EIP-8141's structural rules: `assert frame.mode < 3` becomes `< 4`, and `POST_TX` frames must form a contiguous trailing suffix or the transaction is invalid. Coordinated with EIP-8141 but no existing vectors to redesign.—
New test-framework primitives2New primitives needed to build `POST_TX` frames and to express an expected transaction diff and event enumeration. The BAL expectation types are the closest existing analogue but do not cover balances, codehashes or event ordering.—
Security risks2Introspection is inert: `POST_TX` is a `STATICCALL` that cannot modify state. But `TXDIFF` can still add arbitrary storage keys to the BAL reads, and we need to prove that this does not affect present usecases or future EIPs (the witness generation is affected by this).—
Performance risks2`TXDIFF` 0x00–0x05 take an arbitrary address, so this is the first mechanism by which execution can read another account's storage slot. Those reads enter the BAL, so an assertion can populate the BAL with `(address, slot)` pairs the owning contract never touched, which breaks the assumption that a BAL entry implies interaction by that contract.—
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2Previously unobservable behaviour becomes consensus-critical and has to be settled by discussion before vectors can be baselined: what counts as a change, how net-zero writes collapse, and the canonical enumeration order. Localized to the diff model.—
EVM Gas rule changes1EIP-2929 access-list accounting is extended to a new class of read: `TXDIFF` params 0x00–0x05 fall back to live state, priced warm/cold, and add the slot or address to the access list afterwards.—
Show 18 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreNotes
Modified opcodes0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Added precompiles0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Modified precompiles0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Added system contracts0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Modified system contracts0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Blob gas accounting changes0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
State gas accounting changes0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New EVM gas refund0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New transaction types0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New block / header fields0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Block syncing changes0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New fork activation mechanism0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Engine API changes0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Transition-tool interface changes0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0Additive. The three opcodes halt outside a `POST_TX` frame, so legacy and EIP-1559 transactions are unaffected.—
New invariant on pre-existing tests0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Cryptography0No rationale recorded.
Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Assessment provenance
Rubric
Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator
STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record
Open pull request #132: Add EIP-7906 complexity assessment · checklist at 18cfcab5e2 · updated 2026-08-24
blob e2bc9d7fc5 · sha256 34e1b22f395f
Research record
research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-7906.yaml · sha256 f363d8a27dc3

Both assessments applied Checklist revision 2 (28 criteria) to EIP-7906 in Hegotá. Δ is LLM minus Human.

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

LLM28High
Human23High
Δ total+5Same tier
Criteria22/28agree exactly · 3 differ by 1 · 3 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM
Human

Largest disagreements: EVM Gas rule changes (+2), Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (+2), New test-framework primitives (−2), Performance risks (+1), Security risks (+1)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
CriterionLLMHumanΔAgreementRationale from each source
EVM Gas rule changes31+2Differ by 2+
Show rationale

LLM The proposal adds several opcode-specific gas rules, including dynamic memory/copy charging and state-dependent cold/warm charging. TXDIFF also changes shared warmness, so it can change the gas charged by later existing operations; this reaches score 3.

Human EIP-2929 access-list accounting is extended to a new class of read: `TXDIFF` params 0x00–0x05 fall back to live state, priced warm/cold, and add the slot or address to the access list afterwards.

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests20+2Differ by 2+
Show rationale

LLM A considerable but specialized category of pre-existing frame-transaction and opcode-context tests must be reworked for a fourth mode, a trailing-suffix rule, and failure semantics that override atomic batches. The affected category is contrived to EIP-8141/frame execution, fitting score 2.

Human Additive. The three opcodes halt outside a `POST_TX` frame, so legacy and EIP-1559 transactions are unaffected.

New test-framework primitives02−2Differ by 2+
Show rationale

LLM The sealed specification does not establish a need for a new reusable expectation, modifier, or framework-level abstraction beyond existing transaction/frame construction and EVM execution assertions.

Human New primitives needed to build `POST_TX` frames and to express an expected transaction diff and event enumeration. The BAL expectation types are the closest existing analogue but do not cover balances, codehashes or event ordering.

Security risks32+1Differ by 1
Show rationale

LLM The mechanism spans critical transaction validity, rollback, gas payment, wallet authorization, contract immutability, and adversarial resource exhaustion. Incorrect implementation or integration could compromise users or create DoS behavior, requiring extensive review and fuzzing; score 3.

Human Introspection is inert: `POST_TX` is a `STATICCALL` that cannot modify state. But `TXDIFF` can still add arbitrary storage keys to the BAL reads, and we need to prove that this does not affect present usecases or future EIPs (the witness generation is affected by this).

Performance risks32+1Differ by 1
Show rationale

LLM Transaction-wide diff capture and canonical enumeration cannot be validated only as an isolated opcode microbenchmark; they interact with state journaling, reverts, logs, access lists, and worst-case transaction contents. The stated event scale and attacker-controlled padding create substantial benchmark impact, reaching score 3.

Human `TXDIFF` 0x00–0x05 take an arbitrary address, so this is the first mechanism by which execution can read another account's storage slot. Those reads enter the BAL, so an assertion can populate the BAL with `(address, slot)` pairs the owning contract never touched, which breaks the assumption that a BAL entry implies interaction by that contract.

Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus32+1Differ by 1
Show rationale

LLM Previously internal transaction-prestate/current-state, event, access, fee, and rollback details become directly observable and consensus-critical. Multiple constructible cases lack determined outcomes or constants, and the receipt/rollback text is not fully reconciled with the required frame transaction; this meets score 3.

Human Previously unobservable behaviour becomes consensus-critical and has to be settled by discussion before vectors can be baselined: what counts as a change, how net-zero writes collapse, and the canonical enumeration order. Localized to the diff model.

Added opcodes330Agree
Show rationale

LLM Three opcodes are added and all have complex mechanics or dynamic gas/data behavior; this directly matches score 3.

Human Three new opcodes, at least one complex: `TXTRACE` (22 params), `TXDIFF` (11 params, dynamic warm/cold gas), `EVENTDATACOPY` (4 stack inputs, memory expansion, `CALLDATACOPY` semantics).

Modified opcodes000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.

Human No rationale recorded.

Added precompiles000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No precompile is added.

Human No rationale recorded.

Modified precompiles000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No pre-existing precompile logic or gas schedule is modified.

Human No rationale recorded.

Added system contracts000Agree
Show rationale

LLM The assertion contracts are user-selected contracts, not new system contracts.

Human No rationale recorded.

Modified system contracts000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No pre-existing system contract is directly or indirectly modified by a specified transition.

Human No rationale recorded.

State-access ordering within opcode execution220Agree
Show rationale

LLM TXDIFF is a new state-accessing operation whose gas validation, live-state read, warmness update, and BAL recording position must be fixed. This matches the score-2 anchor for a new state-accessing operation whose ordering must be settled.

Human New state-accessing operations whose position must be settled per param. `TXDIFF` 0x00–0x05 read live state and record in the EIP-7928 BAL; 0x06–0x0A answer from the diff and touch neither. Each of the 11 params needs its access-list and BAL behaviour verified.

Blob gas accounting changes000Agree
Show rationale

LLM EIP-7906 exposes an already-computed blob fee through TXTRACE but does not alter blob-gas charging, limits, base-fee calculation, or refund behavior.

Human No rationale recorded.

State gas accounting changes000Agree
Show rationale

LLM The proposal observes state differences but introduces no state write, state-gas charging site, state budget change, or spill/reservoir rule.

Human No rationale recorded.

New EVM gas refund000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No new EVM gas-refund counter rule or refund mechanism is introduced.

Human No rationale recorded.

New transaction types000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No new transaction envelope or transaction-type byte is introduced.

Human No rationale recorded.

New or modified transaction validity mechanisms220Agree
Show rationale

LLM The proposal modifies validity and failure classification for an existing transaction type. Updates are substantial but localized to frame mode validation and POST_TX execution, with no demonstrated test-infrastructure redesign, fitting score 2.

Human Amends EIP-8141's structural rules: `assert frame.mode < 3` becomes `< 4`, and `POST_TX` frames must form a contiguous trailing suffix or the transaction is invalid. Coordinated with EIP-8141 but no existing vectors to redesign.

New block / header fields000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No new block or block-header field is introduced.

Human No rationale recorded.

Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)000Agree
Show rationale

LLM Adding a semantic value to an existing scalar field is a validity change, not an RLP/SSZ encoding change under this anchor.

Human No rationale recorded.

Block syncing changes000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No block RLP validation mechanism requiring sync testing is introduced.

Human No rationale recorded.

New fork activation mechanism000Agree
Show rationale

LLM Ordinary fork gating of opcodes and validity rules is not a new activation mechanism under the rubric.

Human No rationale recorded.

Engine API changes000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No Engine API change is introduced by this proposal.

Human No rationale recorded.

Transition-tool interface changes000Agree
Show rationale

LLM The package supports an extension of an existing encoded field's accepted values, not a new transition-tool interface field or mechanism.

Human No rationale recorded.

New invariant on pre-existing tests000Agree
Show rationale

LLM The proposal changes targeted frame-transaction logic, but it does not add a mechanically required output that unrelated pre-existing tests must additionally assert.

Human No rationale recorded.

Edge/boundary conditions330Agree
Show rationale

LLM Multiple independent boundary-prone mechanisms require an elevated matrix: params and indices, empty/restored/deployed state, event topic/data limits, warm/cold accesses, POST_TX placement, failure kind, and rollback scope. This meets score 3.

Human Elevated case counts. `TXTRACE` has 22 params and `TXDIFF` 11, each with index bounds; every *must be 0* operand halts on non-zero; `event_topic0`–`3` halt past `event_topic_count`; `EVENTDATACOPY` halts on both out-of-range index and `dataOffset + length`. Plus net-zero collapsing (modified-then-restored sets no entry and no flag bit), canonical uint160/uint256 sort order, `CREATE` leaving empty code, and EIP-7702 designators excluded from `contracts_deployed`.

Cryptography000Agree
Show rationale

LLM No cryptographic mechanism is added or modified.

Human No rationale recorded.

Cross-EIP interactions440Agree
Show rationale

LLM Six identified EIPs create coordinated test axes: EIP-8141 frame validity/rollback/payment, EIP-2929 warm/cold access, EIP-7928 BAL recording, EIP-4844 blob pre-charge, EIP-7702 deployment classification, and EIP-1559 context/fee behavior. Strong interdependence gives base score 3, plus one point for the three interactions beyond the first three, for score 4.

Human Strong interdependencies. **EIP-8141** is a hard dependency that this EIP *amends* — nothing here is testable without it, and EIP-8141 is itself Draft and assessed 🔴 38. **EIP-2929** (pricing, and `TXDIFF` mutates the access list), **EIP-7928** (BAL recording for live-state reads), **EIP-7702** (designators excluded from `contracts_deployed`), **EIP-4844** (blob fees folded into `gas_pre_charge`). <br><br>The "valid only inside a `POST_TX` frame" restriction then pulls in every transaction type as a negative case: the three opcodes must be shown to halt in legacy, **EIP-2930**, **EIP-1559**, **EIP-4844** and **EIP-7702** transactions, and in the `DEFAULT`, `VERIFY` and `SENDER` frame modes — roughly 3 x 8 coordinated cases, each owned by a different EIP's transaction format. With **EIP-2718** framing those types, 8 interacting EIPs gives +1 for 5 beyond the first 3.

Compare EIP-7906 with other assessmentsAll Hegotá assessments
Criterion legend and glossary

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

EVM surface

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

  • 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.