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 12
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. At the information cutoff, EIP-7910 was a draft interface proposal requiring execution clients to expose a parameterless eth_config JSON-RPC method that reports current, next, and last fork configurations together with configuration hashes and EIP-6122 fork identifiers. The reported configuration covered activation time, blob-schedule parameters, chain ID, active precompiles, and system-contract addresses; configuration objects were to be canonically serialized and checksummed with CRC-32. The proposal also required fork-boundary freshness, delegated future field definitions to meta-EIPs, and defined recursive inheritance for EIP-7892 Blob Parameter Only forks.

12MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 4 criteria affected
Plausible range
10–14 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2025-07-10 · EIP revision 59c5b1739b (2025-07-09)
Score bands · Checklist revision 2
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. New fork activation mechanism3
  2. Edge/boundary conditions3
  3. Cross-EIP interactions2
  4. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: Material under-specification is localized to the observable RPC contract. The draft does not uniquely determine null and omission behavior for all nine named result members, the exact canonical field set for configurations whose meta-EIP or linked BPO definition differs from EIP-7910's field list, or all head/fork transition cases that rotate current, next, and last values. Optional Engine API exposure is also named without a distinct conformance contract.

Plausible total

10–14
recorded score 12 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • Which current, next, and last configuration, hash, and fork-ID members are null when no future fork is configured or its activation time is unknown?
  • Does a BPO configuration include maxBlobsPerTx, and exactly how are optional/defaulted and recursively inherited fields included in the canonical hash input?
  • How do head regression or reorganization and multiple forks at one activation time affect current/next/last selection and cache invalidation?
  • Does optional Engine API exposure use an identical method and schema, and is it part of Engine API conformance testing when implemented?
  • Which precise CRC-32 convention and result representation apply to configuration hashes independently of the EIP-6122 fork ID?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (5)
  • The result structure says it has four members of two types but specifies three groups of three named members.
  • Null handling is grammatically shared across current, next, and last values even though the triggering condition concerns the absence of a future fork.
  • EIP-7910 specifies a three-member blobsSchedule while linked EIP-7892 includes optional maxBlobsPerTx with a default.
  • The cache-purge requirement plainly modifies internal RPC state at a fork boundary, but the fork-activation rubric may have been designed primarily for consensus-transition state.
  • Optional Engine API exposure can be read either as simple routing of an eth_ method or as a new Engine API endpoint.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7910 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
New fork activation mechanism3The draft expressly requires internal cached configuration state and the selected current/next/last view to change at a fork boundary. The rubric's binary score-3 anchor covers modification of internal variables or similar at activation, even though no consensus state is written.

Exceptional score: Not applicable.

  • eip.md · Specification, lines 44-46 Returned configuration must follow the most recent provided header, and any configuration cache must be purged when a fork boundary is crossed.
  • eip.md · Result Object Structure, lines 54-60 Crossing a configured fork changes which configurations and corresponding hashes and fork IDs occupy the current, next, and last positions.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The modification is operational RPC cache/view state rather than consensus state; if the anchor is intended only for protocol-transition state, a score of 0 would be plausible.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3The method combines multiple boundary-prone mechanisms: before/at/after fork transitions, known versus absent future forks, current/next/last rotation, synchronized hashes and fork IDs, genesis and unknown activation values, and recursive BPO inheritance. Fork-transition cases must be crossed with the report's several correlated members, producing an elevated case matrix and matching the score-3 anchor.

Exceptional score: Not applicable.

  • eip.md · Result Object Structure, lines 52-60 Current, next, and last configurations and their two identifiers vary with whether a future fork is configured, including null and next-equals-last cases.
  • eip.md · Specification and activationTime, lines 44-46 and 74-78 Values must track the most recent header and fork crossings, while genesis activation uses zero and unscheduled or unknown activation changes inclusion behavior.
  • eip.md · Blob Parameter Only Forks, lines 110-112 BPO configuration derivation can recursively inherit from another BPO parent before applying only blob-schedule updates.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Several boundary outcomes are themselves under-specified, so the exact test matrix cannot be fixed from the draft; a score of 2 is also plausible if these cases are treated as variations of one fork-selection mechanism.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified2The method behaviorally depends on EIP-6122 fork identifiers and EIP-7892 BPO fork/configuration semantics. Coordinated boundary tests are required for both, but the interactions remain limited to deriving and reporting configuration, so the score-2 anchor applies.

Exceptional score: Not applicable.

  • eip.md · Result Object Structure, lines 58-60 Every reported current, next, and last configuration is paired with a FORK_HASH value defined by EIP-6122.
  • supporting/eip-6122.md · Specification, lines 26-48 EIP-6122 defines FORK_HASH from passed block-number and timestamp forks and specifies FORK_NEXT and ordering rules that must align with EIP-7910 outputs.
  • eip.md · Blob Parameter Only Forks, lines 110-112 EIP-7910 expressly adopts EIP-7892 BPO forks as reportable forks and recursively derives their configurations.
  • supporting/eip-7892.md · Definition and Blob schedule configuration, lines 42-61 EIP-7892 defines activation-time blob schedule changes that EIP-7910 must translate into current, next, and last configuration reports.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: EIP-2124 is mentioned only for incorporated CRC-32 rationale and is not counted as a separate behavioral interaction; unnamed defining EIPs for listed precompiles and system contracts are likewise not counted.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-6122, EIP-7892
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Cross-client fixtures cannot uniquely baseline several localized RPC cases: nullability and omission, the exact field set used for canonical hashes, and BPO inheritance when the linked specification has an additional optional field. These require client agreement, but they affect a reporting interface rather than making previously unobservable execution behavior consensus-critical, so the score-2 anchor applies rather than score 3.

Exceptional score: Not applicable.

  • eip.md · Result Object Structure, lines 52-60 The text calls the response four members but names nine, and its null clauses do not unambiguously say which current, next, and last values and identifiers become null when no future fork is configured.
  • eip.md · Converting a Fork Configuration to a Hash and Fields in the Configuration Object, lines 62-82 Hash equality depends on an exact meta-EIP-derived field set, while activation omission and the required three-member blobSchedule leave constructible output cases open.
  • supporting/eip-7892.md · Blob schedule configuration and Requirements, lines 50-55 and 119-124 The linked BPO specification includes maxBlobsPerTx as a fourth blob parameter and makes it optional with a default, unlike EIP-7910's three-member blobSchedule description.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Some readers may infer obvious intended behavior from the samples and linked standards, which would support score 1, but the exact hashed output still needs a common interpretation.
Security risks1The new read-only endpoint has self-contained disclosure, trust, and availability risks that can be reviewed in isolation and does not change execution or chain security invariants. This matches the score-1 anchor.

Exceptional score: Not applicable.

  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 348-352 Identified risks are configuration exposure, dishonest responses, and RPC resource exhaustion, with local/authenticated access, cross-checking, caching, and rate limiting as mitigations.
Confidence: High
Performance risks1Canonicalizing and checksumming configuration objects under RPC load warrants performance validation, but the endpoint can be benchmarked and rate-limited in isolation without altering existing execution performance. This matches the score-1 anchor.

Exceptional score: Not applicable.

  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 348-352 The draft identifies resource-exhaustion risk and recommends caching configuration objects, rate limiting requests, and optionally imposing a minimum response interval.
Confidence: High
Show 22 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is introduced, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Abstract and Configuration RPC, lines 13-15 and 48-50 The proposal is a node-configuration RPC interface and defines no EVM instruction.
Modified opcodes0No existing opcode result or behavior is modified or deprecated, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 146-150 Previous protocol behavior is unchanged; only reporting compliance is added for Cancun and later forks.
Added precompiles0Reporting the active set does not introduce a precompile, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · precompiles, lines 90-98 The RPC object enumerates precompiles already active in a fork, including examples for Cancun and Prague.
Modified precompiles0The proposal modifies neither precompile behavior nor gas accounting, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · precompiles, lines 90-98 Precompiles are represented by address and agreed name; no precompile logic or gas schedule is changed.
Added system contracts0EIP-7910 reports existing system contracts but deploys no new system contract, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · systemContracts, lines 100-108 The result object enumerates addresses of system contracts introduced elsewhere and asks future meta-EIPs to define reportable lists.
Modified system contracts0Merely reporting system-contract configuration has no direct or indirect effect on those contracts, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · systemContracts, lines 100-108 System contracts appear only as names and addresses in the RPC response; their code, state, and behavior are not changed.
EVM Gas rule changes0The proposal exposes configuration data and does not modify EVM gas accounting, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 38-50 The required change is a parameterless JSON-RPC reporting method; no EVM gas-charging rule is introduced or changed.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode execution path or state-access ordering changes, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 38-50 The specification adds an RPC method and says nothing about opcode execution or the ordering of state access and gas charging.
Blob gas accounting changes0Reporting configured blob parameters and deriving a reportable BPO configuration do not alter blob-gas accounting rules. The zero anchor therefore applies.
  • eip.md · Fields in the Configuration Object, lines 80-82 The method reports three already-configured blob schedule parameters as JSON numbers.
  • eip.md · Blob Parameter Only Forks, lines 110-112 For reporting purposes, a BPO fork derives a configuration by inheriting its parent and updating blob schedule values.
State gas accounting changes0The proposal introduces no state-gas costs, charging sites, budget, reservoir, or spill behavior, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Fields in the Configuration Object, lines 68-108 The reportable fields are activation time, blob schedule, chain ID, precompiles, and system-contract addresses; no state-gas charge or budget is defined.
New EVM gas refund0No gas-refund mechanism is introduced, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Configuration RPC, lines 48-50 The sole new mechanism in this passage is a read-only, parameterless JSON-RPC method.
New transaction types0No transaction type is introduced, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Configuration RPC, lines 48-50 The only new wire-level request is a parameterless RPC method, not a transaction envelope.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Transaction validity and intrinsic gas calculations are untouched, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 146-150 The proposal states that previous behavior is unchanged and scopes compliance to configuration reporting.
New block / header fields0No block or header field is introduced, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 38-46 The latest block header is only the reference point for fresh RPC values; no field is added to a block or header.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No transaction, block, or existing interface encoding is changed. Defining the payload and checksum serialization of a new JSON-RPC method is not an RLP/SSZ or replacement interface encoding change, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Configuration RPC and Converting a Fork Configuration to a Hash, lines 48-50 and 62-66 The method uses the existing JSON-RPC transport and defines canonical JSON only as input to a new configuration checksum.
Uncertainty: The rubric includes interface-level encoding, but this draft adds a new JSON payload rather than changing an existing interface's encoding.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP validation mechanism or sync behavior is changed, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Configuration RPC, lines 48-50 The change is an RPC query and does not introduce block RLP fields or block-validation rules.
Engine API changesUnder-specified0The proposal mandates no Engine API field, directive, or endpoint; optional routing of eth_config through that port is not a required Engine API interface change. The zero anchor is the best-supported primary score.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 38-40 Standard JSON-RPC exposure is mandatory, while making the same method available through the Engine API is optional.
Uncertainty: If optional exposure is interpreted as introducing an Engine API endpoint that must be tested whenever implemented, the score-2 new-endpoint anchor could apply.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool field or mechanism is specified, matching the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification and Configuration RPC, lines 38-50 The interface addition is on the standard JSON-RPC port and is not a transition-tool input or output.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0Testing the new reporting API can be done in EIP-specific cases; the proposal does not rework existing execution-validation tests. This matches the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 146-150 The draft states that it does not alter previous behavior and relaxes compliance only for reported pre-Cancun configurations.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0The text does not require tests unrelated to EIP-7910 to assert an additional output or invariant. Dedicated RPC tests suffice, so the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 146-150 Existing behavior is explicitly left unchanged; compliance concerns the values returned by the new method.
New test-framework primitives0Existing fixture comparison and RPC request primitives are sufficient; the draft does not require a new framework-level expectation, modifier, or helper.
  • eip.md · Test Cases, lines 152-158 and 225-235 The supplied tests are ordinary JSON configuration fixtures and a conventional JSON-RPC request/response example.
Cryptography0CRC-32 is a non-cryptographic checksum, and EIP-7910 introduces or modifies no cryptographic mechanism. The zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Converting a Fork Configuration to a Hash, lines 62-66 Canonical JSON is checksummed with CRC-32 for the configuration hash.
  • eip.md · CRC-32 as Hash Format, lines 142-144 The rationale treats CRC-32 as a convenience checksum rather than a security mechanism and notes its broad availability.
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 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator
gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/05-retrospective-complexity-assignment/outputs/fork-eips/osaka/eip-7910.yaml · sha256 ee28e5ddea19
Supporting documents in the sealed package
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 · 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.