Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7910: eth_config JSON-RPC Method

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 2025-07-10Added after cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 7
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2025-07-09 · 59c5b1739b

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7910 (revision 59c5b17) adds a public JSON-RPC method, `eth_config`. It takes no parameters and returns the full configuration objects for the current, next and last known forks: activationTime, blob schedule, chainId, active precompiles and system contracts. For each object it also returns a CRC-32 hash of the RFC-8785 canonical JSON and the EIP-6122 FORK_HASH. BPO forks from EIP-7892 are treated as new forks that inherit from their parent and change only blob schedule values. The EIP is an Interface-category change. It changes no consensus, EVM, encoding or block-validation rule; exposing the method through the Engine API is optional (MAY).

7LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
5–13 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2025-07-10 · EIP revision 59c5b1739b (2025-07-09)
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. Cross-EIP interactions2
  3. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2
  4. Edge/boundary conditions1

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 has internal inconsistencies and deferred definitions that affect the observable RPC output and its hashes. The blob field is named "blobsSchedule" in the spec but "blobSchedule" in the examples. The member count is wrong. Null conditions for currentHash and currentForkId are stated in terms of the next configuration. activationTime is called required, yet the text also says it should be omitted for an unscheduled fork. Whether the EIP-7892 maxBlobsPerTx field is included is unresolved. The Osaka field set is deferred to a meta-EIP that was not supplied, and how BPO forks affect FORK_HASH is unstated.

Plausible total

5–13
recorded score 7 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (7)
  • Is the canonical key "blobsSchedule" or "blobSchedule"? The choice changes the CRC-32 hash.
  • Is maxBlobsPerTx (EIP-7892) included in the blob schedule object?
  • When are currentHash and currentForkId null, given that current always exists?
  • Is nextForkId the FORK_HASH including the next fork's timestamp, and how do BPO forks enter FORK_HASH?
  • Does an unscheduled next fork omit activationTime or the whole config?
  • What are the Osaka precompile names and system contracts, given that the meta-EIP was not supplied?
  • Is Engine API exposure standardized, and if so, with what schema?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (7)
  • Field-name mismatch: blobsSchedule (spec) vs blobSchedule (examples).
  • "Four members of two types" contradicts the nine members described.
  • activationTime is "required", yet it is also to be omitted when unscheduled.
  • The hash and forkId null conditions reference the next configuration even for current.
  • The three-member blob object conflicts with EIP-7892's optional maxBlobsPerTx.
  • Pre-Cancun configurations are explicitly non-standard.
  • The hash is said to be computed over meta-EIP-specified parameters, but the meta-EIP for the assessed fork was not supplied.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7910 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified2Testing needs RPC-level expectations derived from a fork schedule: generating the expected config objects, canonical-JSON CRC-32 hashes and EIP-6122 fork IDs, and re-querying across fork boundaries. That is a new expectation and construction abstraction within the target's suite. It does not change how other behavioral families are built or checked.
  • eip.md · Converting a Fork Configuration to a Hash Expected hashes require RFC-8785 canonicalization followed by CRC-32.
  • eip.md · Specification — "If clients cache the configuration, they MUST ensure such caches are purged when fork boundaries are crossed." Output must be checked as the head crosses scheduled fork timestamps.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — Sample JSON-RPC Testing is done by checking the RPC response against node configuration.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: No framework evidence was supplied. Existing RPC test harnesses could make this a local extension (level 1).
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified2Coordinated cases are needed across forkId computation (EIP-6122) and BPO fork schedules (EIP-7892): fork IDs and config objects must stay correct as current/next/last advance through regular and BPO forks. This does not restructure shared vectors, so the level is 2, not 3.
  • eip.md · Result Object Structure — "FORK_HASH value as specified in EIP-6122" currentForkId, nextForkId and lastForkId must equal the EIP-6122 FORK_HASH for each configuration.
  • supporting/eip-6122.md · Specification — FORK_HASH CRC32 over the genesis hash and passed fork timestamps; forks at the same timestamp are checksummed once.
  • eip.md · Blob Parameter Only Forks BPO forks are new configs that inherit from their parent recursively and update only blobSchedule.
  • supporting/eip-7892.md · Execution layer configuration Defines bpoN entries with activation times and maxBlobsPerTx.
  • eip.md · CRC-32 as Hash Format EIP-2124 is cited only for the choice of CRC-32.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: How BPO forks contribute to the EL FORK_HASH is not stated in the supplied texts.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-6122, EIP-7892, EIP-2124
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2Observable RPC outputs, including the hash values, have competing interpretations: the blob field name, whether maxBlobsPerTx is included, null conditions, and the forkId semantics for next/last. Clients must agree on these before expected results can be fixed. These outputs are not consensus-visible, so level 3 does not apply.
  • eip.md · `blobsSchedule` vs Test Cases "blobSchedule" The field name is inconsistent between the spec and the examples, and the name changes the canonical JSON and therefore the CRC-32 hash.
  • eip.md · Result Object Structure — "The RPC response contains four members of two types" Nine members are described. currentHash and currentForkId are said to be null 'if the next configuration is also null', which conflicts with current always existing.
  • eip.md · `activationTime` — "Activation time is required... it should not be in the rpc results" Contradicts itself on whether an unscheduled fork's activationTime is present.
  • supporting/eip-7892.md · Blob schedule configuration — maxBlobsPerTx BPO adds maxBlobsPerTx, but EIP-7910 specifies exactly three blob members, so whether to include it is unresolved.
  • eip.md · Converting a Fork Configuration to a Hash — "exactly the parameters specified in the fork's meta-EIP" The Osaka field set, precompile names and system contracts are deferred to a meta-EIP that was not supplied.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Some gaps (the Osaka meta-EIP contents) are evidence gaps rather than omissions in the specification.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified1The main boundary-sensitive mechanism is selecting current/next/last relative to the head timestamp and fork activation times. It covers the timestamp boundary, no future fork, and next equal to last. Genesis activation (0) and BPO chains are variants of the same selection.
  • eip.md · Specification — "reflecting the most recent block header they provide" current/next/last must switch exactly when the head crosses a fork activation timestamp.
  • eip.md · Result Object Structure — "or null if the client is not configured to support a future fork" Defines the null conditions and the case where next equals last.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Null handling and BPO recursion could be counted as separate mechanisms, which would give level 2.
Show 24 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcodes are added.
  • eip.md · Specification No new instruction.
Modified opcodes0No opcodes are modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction semantics change.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced.
  • eip.md · `precompiles` Active precompiles are only enumerated by name.
Modified precompiles0No precompile changes.
  • eip.md · `precompiles` Only names are assigned for reporting. Semantics and gas are unchanged.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · `systemContracts` Existing system contract addresses are only reported.
Modified system contracts0No system contract rules change.
  • eip.md · `systemContracts` Lists names and addresses without changing any contract or the protocol behavior around it.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas accounting rule changes.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Clients MUST expose a new RPC method" The only required change is a new RPC method. No gas rule is specified.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Configuration RPC Introduces an RPC method only. No instruction semantics or ordering are involved.
Blob gas accounting changes0Blob parameters are reported, not changed, so blob accounting is unchanged.
  • eip.md · `blobsSchedule` Reports the configured blob parameters (baseFeeUpdateFraction, max, target) without changing them.
  • eip.md · Blob Parameter Only Forks BPO forks are only interpreted for reporting purposes.
State gas accounting changes0No state gas accounting change.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-writing cost rule is specified.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is specified.
New transaction types0No new transaction type.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction envelope.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No transaction-validity change.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility No consensus rule changes.
New block / header fields0No header fields are added.
  • eip.md · Specification No header member is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)Under-specified0The new JSON schema belongs to public JSON-RPC, which is not among the listed EL objects or interfaces. Engine API exposure is optional.
  • eip.md · Result Object Structure Defines a new JSON schema for a public RPC response only.
Uncertainty: If the method were exposed through the Engine API, its schema would count here.
Block syncing changes0No RLP decoding or structural validation change.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility No block decoding or validation change.
New fork activation mechanism0No activation-specific EL state transition.
  • eip.md · Specification — cache purge at fork boundaries Only internal reporting state switches at a fork. There is no state migration.
Engine API changesUnder-specified0The required method is public JSON-RPC, which this criterion excludes. Engine API exposure is only permitted (MAY), so the EL/CL contract does not change normatively.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Clients MAY also expose this method through the Engine API." Engine API exposure is optional, not a required contract change.
Uncertainty: If clients standardize Engine API exposure, it would add an endpoint (level 2).
Transition-tool interface changes0No t8n interface change is required.
  • eip.md · Configuration RPC The change is confined to the JSON-RPC surface. Nothing touches state-transition inputs or outputs.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0Baseline consensus tests need no rework.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "This EIP does not alter previous behavior." Existing behavior is explicitly unchanged.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0No new assertion is needed on baseline tests. The new output is only an RPC response.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility No new block, receipt or state output is produced.
Security risks0No consensus validation boundary or trust invariant changes. The RPC exposure guidance is operator policy (SHOULD).
  • eip.md · Security Considerations Exposure, dishonest-node and DDoS concerns are operational and are handled by operators restricting the interface.
Uncertainty: A local check of RPC access restriction could count as level 1.
Performance risks0No changed execution workload or resource bound needs performance validation. The DoS concern is generic to RPC.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — DDoS Mitigation Recommends caching and rate limiting of RPC requests. This is generic DoS concern, not a changed EL workload bound.
Cryptography0CRC-32 over canonical JSON is a non-cryptographic checksum on an RPC output. No cryptographic verification rule is executed by the EL.
  • eip.md · CRC-32 as Hash Format — "instead of a cryptographic hash" Uses the non-cryptographic CRC-32 checksum for convenience, not security.
Uncertainty: Treating a new hashing-based identifier as level 1 would be a stretch, but it is possible.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@59c5b1739b EIPS/eip-7910.md committed 2025-07-09 · information cutoff 2025-07-10T14:25:07Z
Current master · File history · blob 83d8bfb99c · sha256 8b88d88cd374
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-7910.yaml · sha256 78661dd860c6
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-6122.md, supporting/eip-7892.md
Compare EIP-7910 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.