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 13
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. This revision of EIP-7918 changes one consensus function: EIP-4844's `calc_excess_blob_gas()`. Under the old rule, the parent's blob gas used is added to the excess and `TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK` is subtracted. Under the new rule, that subtraction is skipped when `TX_BASE_COST * parent.base_fee_per_gas` is greater than `TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK * get_base_fee_per_blob_gas(parent)`. This links the blob fee update to the execution base fee and stops the blob base fee from staying far below the execution cost of a blob-carrying transaction. The EIP adds no transactions, header fields, opcodes, precompiles, system contracts or Engine API changes. Its effect reaches clients through header validation of `excess_blob_gas` and through every value derived from the blob base fee.

13MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
10–16 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2025-03-26 · EIP revision d4a7453aac (2025-03-26)
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. Blob gas accounting changes3
  2. Block syncing changes2
  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: TX_BASE_COST is used in the consensus condition but is not defined in the target or in the supplied EIP-4844. The EIP uses the 4844 constant TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK and get_base_fee_per_blob_gas(parent) without saying which fork's target and update fraction apply on the Prague baseline or at the fork-boundary block.

Plausible total

10–16
recorded score 13 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • What is the value of TX_BASE_COST: the 21000 intrinsic transaction gas or something else?
  • Which target and update-fraction parameters apply (4844 constants or later fork-dependent values) for parent blocks on a Prague baseline?
  • For the first Osaka block, whose parent is a Prague block, does the new rule apply when computing the child's excess_blob_gas?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • TX_BASE_COST is undefined in the supplied documents.
  • The strict '>' comparison sends the exact-parity case to the subtracting branch. Tests should cover equality.
  • get_base_fee_per_blob_gas(parent) uses the parent's excess_blob_gas, so the comparison is made on parent-block fees, not on the child's fees. The Rationale lists alternatives using the updated fees, which are not normative.
  • How the fork-dependent blob parameters on the Prague baseline relate to the 4844 constant names is unspecified in the supplied text.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7918 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Blob gas accounting changesUnder-specified3A new rule bounds the blob base fee by execution cost and links blob pricing to the execution base fee. It replaces the baseline excess update in the execution-fee-led regime, so baseline expectations for excess_blob_gas and the blob base fee change. This meets level 3.
  • eip.md · Specification — "if TX_BASE_COST * parent.base_fee_per_gas > TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK * get_base_fee_per_blob_gas(parent)" Adds a new pricing condition that bounds the blob fee by execution cost. In that regime the target is not subtracted, so excess_blob_gas grows by the full blob_gas_used.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Header extension — calc_excess_blob_gas Baseline rule: always subtract the target, floored at 0. The new branch changes the expected excess_blob_gas values from this baseline rule.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: This could be read as a change to an existing rule (level 1) rather than a new mechanism. There is no new gas type or fee; it is a new conditional regime.
Block syncing changes2Exactly one complex structural validation rule changes. The excess_blob_gas header check depends on several parent fields and must be tested through block import, including rejection of headers that use the old formula.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation — excess_blob_gas assert Header validation compares excess_blob_gas with calc_excess_blob_gas(parent).
  • eip.md · Specification The validation now also depends on the parent's base_fee_per_gas and the derived blob base fee.
Confidence: Medium
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified2Coordinated cases with EIP-4844 are needed. They are multi-block sequences in which parent execution base fee and blob usage push excess_blob_gas into either regime, followed by checks of the blob fee charged and of max_fee_per_blob_gas validity in the following blocks. The execution base fee (EIP-1559 mechanism, not in the candidate list) is also coupled.
  • eip.md · Specification — "The function calc_excess_blob_gas() from EIP-4844 is changed" Directly modifies EIP-4844's excess blob gas mechanism.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Gas accounting / Execution layer validation The blob base fee drives blob fee charging and the max_fee_per_blob_gas validity check, both of which are affected by the new excess value.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Counting the EIP-1559 base-fee coupling as a separate interacting EIP could support level 3.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-4844
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2The value of TX_BASE_COST decides which branch is taken and therefore the consensus-visible excess_blob_gas. It is undefined in the supplied documents, and its name allows competing values, such as an intrinsic gas of 21000 or something else. Which target and update-fraction values apply at the Prague→Osaka fork-boundary block is also not stated. Expected results cannot be fixed until clients and the specification agree.
  • eip.md · Specification — TX_BASE_COST TX_BASE_COST is used but never defined, and the supplied EIP-4844 does not define it either.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Parameters Defines TARGET_BLOB_GAS_PER_BLOCK as 393216 and nothing for TX_BASE_COST. The supplied text gives no rule for the Prague-baseline or fork-boundary parameter values.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: An absent document might define TX_BASE_COST, so this is partly an evidence gap. The name strongly suggests the base intrinsic transaction cost, which would make this level 1.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified1Rework is limited to tests of excess_blob_gas and blob base fee evolution whose parameters fall in the execution-fee-led regime (high parent base fee, low blob base fee). These are parameter cases within one family.
  • eip.md · Specification excess_blob_gas changes only when the parent's execution base fee times TX_BASE_COST exceeds the target blob gas times the blob base fee.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation — "assert block.header.excess_blob_gas == calc_excess_blob_gas(block.parent.header)" Baseline tests check excess_blob_gas through header validation. Cases where the parent base fee is high and the blob fee is low get different expected values.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: How many baseline vectors fall in that regime depends on the default base fees in the tests and on the undefined value of TX_BASE_COST. If typical fixtures use a high base fee, rework could extend to ordinary cases (level 2).
New test-framework primitives1The existing helper that computes excess blob gas or blob base fee needs a local extension. No new abstraction is required.
  • eip.md · Specification The framework's helper for expected excess_blob_gas must take the parent execution base fee and the new parity condition into account.
Confidence: Medium
Security risks1The new consensus arithmetic, including the large products of base fee and constant, can be checked locally. No other component's security assumptions change.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations The author states there are no known security risks.
  • eip.md · Specification Consensus-critical multiplications of base fees by constants. Large-value arithmetic must not overflow differently across clients.
Confidence: Medium
Edge/boundary conditions1One boundary-sensitive mechanism: the fee-parity comparison, including the equality case and its interaction with the zero floor and with fake_exponential rounding. It depends on parent base fee, excess and blob gas used, but it is still a single mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification — strict '>' comparison A single parity condition with a strict inequality. Equality falls into the subtracting branch. It sits alongside the existing zero-floor check.
Confidence: Medium
Show 20 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No opcodes are added.
Modified opcodes0No opcode semantics change. Any opcode that reports the blob base fee keeps its semantics; only the header input changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Instruction semantics are unchanged. Only header-derived fee values may differ.
Added precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles are added.
Modified precompiles0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles change.
Added system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No contracts are added.
Modified system contracts0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are involved.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas accounting rule changes. The execution base fee is read but not modified.
  • eip.md · Specification Only calc_excess_blob_gas() is changed; execution-gas charging, metering and limits are untouched. The execution base fee is only read as an input.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification The change is confined to a header-level function. No instruction behavior is touched.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Nothing related to state gas is changed.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is introduced.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No new transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No transaction-validity rule changes. Blob transactions near the fee threshold are covered as interaction cases, not as a new validity rule.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Execution layer validation — "assert tx.max_fee_per_blob_gas >= get_base_fee_per_blob_gas(block.header)" The validity rule is unchanged. Only the blob base fee value it compares against can differ.
New block / header fields0Only the value of an existing field changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No header field is added. The existing excess_blob_gas field gets a new derivation.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No schema changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only the value of the existing excess_blob_gas field changes. The schema is unchanged.
New fork activation mechanism0Only rule selection at the fork boundary. No activation-specific state transition.
  • eip.md · Specification Only the rule changes. No state migration or code installation is required.
Engine API changes0No Engine API fields or endpoints change.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API change is described.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified0The calculation needs only parent header values that the baseline already uses, so no interface change is established.
  • eip.md · Specification — calc_excess_blob_gas(parent: Header) The new rule uses parent.base_fee_per_gas, parent.excess_blob_gas and parent.blob_gas_used. The tool already needs these parent fields to compute base fee and excess.
Uncertainty: No transition-tool interface documentation was supplied. If the tool does not already pass the parent base fee to the excess calculation, one field could be needed (level 1).
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Only existing values change, which counts as rework, not a new assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification No new output field, log or commitment is introduced.
Performance risks0No additional performance validation is required.
  • eip.md · Specification Adds one multiplication and comparison. The blob base fee is computed with the existing fake_exponential.
Cryptography0No cryptographic change.
  • eip.md · Specification Integer fee arithmetic only.
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 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-7918.yaml · sha256 bf2b7cc57c53
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
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 · 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.