Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7918: Blob base fee bounded by execution cost

Assessed in Osaka / Fusaka. The score describes the EIP text available at the assessment cutoff, not the EIP as it stands today.

RetrospectiveOsaka / FusakaAssessment cutoff 2025-03-26Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 11
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2025-03-26 · d4a7453aac

Scope at the cutoff. At the information cutoff, this Draft EIP changed EIP-4844's parent-derived `calc_excess_blob_gas()` update. When the parent blob-gas total is at least the target and the execution cost represented by `TX_BASE_COST` exceeds the target blobs' blob fee, the update retains the full parent total instead of subtracting the blob-gas target. The stated goal was to keep the blob fee auction responsive rather than allowing the blob base fee to collapse while execution cost carries the price signal.

11LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
10–12 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2025-03-26 · EIP revision d4a7453aac (2025-03-26)
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. Security risks2
  2. Edge/boundary conditions2
  3. Cross-EIP interactions2
  4. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: The normative rule uses `TX_BASE_COST` without defining its value or exact composition. That omission prevents clients from agreeing on which side of the fee-parity branch a constructed block occupies, even though the rest of the update rule is localized and explicit.

Plausible total

10–12
recorded score 11 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (1)
  • What exact numeric value and cost components does `TX_BASE_COST` denote for the normative fee-parity comparison?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (2)
  • The preferred normative specification is distinguishable from the two explicitly labeled alternatives, but `TX_BASE_COST` is never defined.
  • The proposal notes delayed catch-up after a rapid execution-base-fee rise without specifying a separate bound; the normative recurrence nevertheless determines each block's result once its constants are defined.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7918 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Security risksUnder-specified2Incorrect threshold or update behavior could affect consensus on the header and the intended fee/resource-control mechanism. The change interacts with a limited set of critical existing components—the execution base fee and EIP-4844 blob accounting—so targeted security and economic review is warranted, matching score 2 rather than an extensive multi-component score.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 18-22 The proposal addresses loss of the blob-price signal, fallback to a first-price auction, and spiky blob resource consumption.
  • eip.md · Specification and Security Considerations, lines 30-40 and 93-95 The rule couples execution and blob fee values, while the author reports no known security risks.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The security section is brief and the undefined `TX_BASE_COST` leaves the exact economic threshold unresolved.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified2Tests must cross below, at, and above the existing target-total boundary with below, equal, and above fee parity, including the different equality behavior of the strict comparison. These are multiple interacting boundary conditions but do not require an elevated case count beyond that compact matrix, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-40 The output depends both on the target-total boundary and on a strict greater-than fee-parity boundary.
  • eip.md · Delayed response during a quick rise in execution fees, lines 55-57 The proposal identifies a multi-block catch-up period when execution fees rise quickly.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Exact parity inputs cannot be fixed until `TX_BASE_COST` is defined.
Cross-EIP interactions2The proposal modifies EIP-4844 and couples that blob-fee mechanism to the EIP-1559 execution base fee. Coordinated cross-market boundary tests are required, but the interaction is limited to the fee update calculation, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Front matter and Specification, lines 1-11 and 28-40 EIP-7918 explicitly requires EIP-4844 and modifies its excess-blob-gas update.
  • eip.md · Abstract, lines 14-16 The new rule directly compares the blob base fee with `base_fee_per_gas`.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Front matter and Gas accounting, lines 1-11 and 164-181 EIP-4844 requires EIP-1559 and defines its blob gas as a separate targeting rule similar to EIP-1559.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: EIP-1559 is an indirect dependency through EIP-4844 and the existing `base_fee_per_gas` field, but the new comparison makes that interaction direct for testing purposes.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-1559, EIP-4844
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Clients cannot baseline the fee-parity branch without agreeing on the numeric meaning of `TX_BASE_COST`. The gap is localized to one constant and does not expose previously unobservable behavior, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Front matter and Specification, lines 1-11 and 28-40 The normative comparison uses `TX_BASE_COST`, but the EIP provides no value or definition for that symbol.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Parameters, lines 38-56 The required EIP defines the blob-gas constants used by the comparison but does not define `TX_BASE_COST`.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The phrase "simple blob-carrying transaction" suggests an intended interpretation, but the sealed text does not make that interpretation normative.
Blob gas accounting changesUnder-specified1This is a direct update to EIP-4844's existing blob-gas accounting mechanism, matching score 1; it does not introduce a separate new blob-gas mechanism.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension and Gas accounting, lines 152-181 EIP-4844 already defines the excess-blob-gas update and derives the blob base fee from that value.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 adds a fee-parity branch that can omit subtraction of the target in the existing update.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The accounting rule is structurally clear, but the undefined `TX_BASE_COST` prevents exact threshold vectors from being baselined.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified1Existing EIP-4844 excess-blob-gas and block-header vectors in the execution-fee-led regime must be reworked, but this is a narrow subset of existing tests, matching score 1.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation, lines 244-253 Existing block validation asserts that the header's excess blob gas equals the output of the update function.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The replacement update changes the expected value only when its new fee-parity condition is satisfied.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The undefined `TX_BASE_COST` leaves the exact subset of affected fee vectors unresolved and could make the affected subset larger.
Performance risks1The added per-block work is self-contained and can be benchmarked in isolation, with no stated broad effect on existing performance behavior, matching score 1.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-40 The per-block update adds a comparison and a call to derive the parent blob base fee.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Helpers and Gas accounting, lines 83-94 and 169-181 Blob-base-fee derivation uses the existing iterative `fake_exponential()` helper.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The text supplies no performance measurements, although the computation is bounded to one existing helper invocation per update.
Show 21 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added by EIP-7918.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 specifies only a change to `calc_excess_blob_gas()`.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Opcode to get versioned hashes, lines 188-193 The blob-related BLOBHASH opcode already belongs to EIP-4844 and is not changed by this proposal.
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The normative code modifies a block-level accounting helper, not opcode behavior.
Added precompiles0No precompile is added by EIP-7918.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 adds only a fee-parity branch and does not define a precompile.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Point evaluation precompile, lines 195-223 The blob point-evaluation precompile is pre-existing EIP-4844 functionality.
Modified precompiles0No existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The change neither invokes nor alters precompile logic or gas accounting.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The complete normative change is a calculation branch and creates no contract or system action.
Modified system contracts0No existing system contract is directly or indirectly modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The excess-blob-gas update does not read, write, or otherwise reference system-contract code or state.
EVM Gas rule changes0The proposal changes the separate blob-gas fee mechanism, not EVM execution-gas charging, so the EVM gas-rule anchor is not triggered.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting, lines 164-167 EIP-4844 defines blob gas as independent of normal gas.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 changes only the excess-blob-gas update calculation.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode's state-access position or gas-charge ordering is changed.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The normative change is header-derived fee arithmetic and contains no opcode execution or state access.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas cost, charging site, budget, reservoir, or spill path is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The change updates excess blob gas and does not charge for writing state or alter a state-gas budget.
New EVM gas refund0No new EVM gas-refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The new branch changes excess-blob-gas accumulation and specifies no refund behavior.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting, lines 184-186 The pre-existing blob fee is burned and not refunded on transaction failure.
New transaction types0No new transaction type is introduced.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Blob transaction, lines 97-117 The blob transaction type is pre-existing EIP-4844 functionality.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 introduces no transaction format or type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0The changed consensus value is a block validity consequence, not a change to any transaction type's validity rules or intrinsic gas calculation.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation, lines 244-281 EIP-4844 separately defines the existing block-header assertion and blob-transaction validity checks.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 changes the block's excess-blob-gas derivation and does not change transaction validity or intrinsic gas.
New block / header fields0No new block or header field is introduced.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension, lines 119-162 `blob_gas_used` and `excess_blob_gas` are fields already introduced by EIP-4844.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 only changes the derivation of the existing `excess_blob_gas` field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No transaction, block, or interface encoding is changed.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension, lines 119-150 EIP-4844 already establishes the RLP header encoding containing the blob-gas fields.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 changes how one existing field value is computed, not how any data is encoded.
Block syncing changes0No new block RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension, lines 119-160 EIP-4844 already defines the header fields and their RLP encoding.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 changes the value-calculation rule without adding an RLP validation mechanism.
New fork activation mechanism0Switching to the new calculation at the fork does not itself modify state or an internal variable at the activation block, so the binary anchor is zero.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The proposal defines the ongoing parent-derived rule and specifies no activation-block state or internal-variable mutation.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension, lines 152-162 The parent blob-gas fields and their first-introduction initialization are pre-existing EIP-4844 behavior.
Engine API changes0No Engine API field or communication mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The specification changes a local header-derived calculation and defines no Engine API field or endpoint.
Transition-tool interface changes0No new transition-tool field or interface mechanism is required; the additional comparison is derivable from the already supplied parent header.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension, lines 152-160 The pre-existing update accepts the parent header.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 30-40 The modified function keeps the same parent-header interface and reads existing header fields.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Tests may need revised expected values, but they gain no additional invariant or assertion, so this distinct anchor remains zero.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation, lines 244-253 EIP-4844 already requires the excess-blob-gas header value to match the update function.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 EIP-7918 changes that existing function's result rather than adding a new asserted output.
New test-framework primitives0Existing value- and block-expectation primitives suffice; the text provides no need for a new framework abstraction, modifier, or expectation type.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The feature is expressed as deterministic integer comparisons and returns over existing header inputs.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 28-40 The normative change consists solely of fee multiplication, comparison, addition, and subtraction.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Cryptographic Helpers, lines 67-74 EIP-4844's KZG proof helpers are pre-existing context and are not referenced by the EIP-7918 change.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@d4a7453aac EIPS/eip-7918.md committed 2025-03-26 · information cutoff 2025-03-26T23:25:10Z
Current master · File history · blob bd5700342a · sha256 eeca54feba9d
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-7918.yaml · sha256 c639c010d7f4
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-4844.md
Compare EIP-7918 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.