Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7939: Count leading zeros (CLZ) opcode

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 2025-07-02Added after cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 4
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2025-06-09 · c43098e67b

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7939 (revision c43098e, Draft) adds one EVM instruction, CLZ (0x1e). It pops a single 256-bit word and pushes the number of leading zero bits, or 256 when the input is zero. It has a fixed gas cost of 3, the same as ADD. It has no immediate data and does not access state. The specification gives reference implementations in Solidity, Python and C++, plus six input/output test vectors. It changes no transactions, headers, Engine API, system contracts or precompiles.

4LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
No
Plausible range
3–5 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2025-07-02 · EIP revision c43098e67b (2025-06-09)
Score bands · Checklist revision 3
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. Added opcodes1
  2. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1
  3. Performance risks1
  4. Edge/boundary conditions1

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No

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

The assessor found no material behavior left unresolved by the EIP text at the cutoff.

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The first test vector's PUSH32 literal has 63 hex digits instead of 64; it is clearly meant to be zero.
  • The C++ reference assumes the uint32 limbs are ordered with x[7] as the most significant limb. This is an implementation detail, not a protocol rule.
  • The gas cost is given as the number 3, without naming a fee constant such as Gverylow.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7939 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes1Exactly one simple instruction is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification — "A new opcode is introduced: `CLZ` (`0x1e`)." Exactly one new instruction is added.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Pops 1 value ... Pushes a value ... The cost of the opcode is 3" It has fixed stack effects (1 in, 1 out), no immediate data and constant gas.
Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified1Baseline tests that list undefined opcodes or expect 0x1e to halt exceptionally need updating for the target fork. This rework is limited to particular cases in one family (invalid/undefined-opcode tests).
  • eip.md · Specification — "A new opcode is introduced: `CLZ` (`0x1e`)." Byte 0x1e was previously undefined and now becomes a valid instruction.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "This is a new opcode not present prior." Before this change, 0x1e behaved as an undefined opcode.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Whether any baseline tests actually use byte 0x1e as an undefined-opcode case depends on the suite, which was not supplied.
Performance risks1A component benchmark of CLZ against ADD across client implementations is enough to confirm that 3 gas is safe, for example a block filled with CLZ calls. Baseline end-to-end assumptions do not change.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Gas cost — "`CLZ` uses approximately the same amount of compute cycles as `ADD`." The gas price of 3 is justified by a component benchmark against ADD.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "low worst-case constant cost" The specification claims constant worst-case cost.
Confidence: High
Edge/boundary conditions1There is one boundary-sensitive mechanism: the CLZ result function, with boundaries at zero, the most significant bit, the least significant bit and the 64/32-bit limb edges. Stack underflow with an empty stack and out-of-gas at cost 3 belong to the same instruction. There is no elevated matrix.
  • eip.md · Abstract — "If `x` is zero, pushes 256." Zero input is a special case.
  • eip.md · Test Cases The vectors cover 0, 1, 2^255, 2^254, 2^255-1 and 2^256-1, i.e. the bit-position boundaries.
Confidence: High
Show 24 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes0Byte 0x1e was undefined before, so defining it is an added opcode, not a modification of an existing one.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "This is a new opcode not present prior." No existing instruction changes.
Added precompiles0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is introduced.
Modified precompiles0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification Precompiles are not affected.
Added system contracts0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is affected.
EVM Gas rule changes0Assigning a constant cost to a new instruction uses the existing static-gas mechanism. No execution-gas charging, metering or settlement rule changes, and no baseline gas expectation changes. The opcode's own gas cost is covered by the opcode tests.
  • eip.md · Specification — "The cost of the opcode is 3, the same as `ADD`." The new opcode charges a fixed cost using the existing constant-gas pattern. No accounting rule is introduced or changed.
Uncertainty: Someone could treat a new instruction's gas entry as a parameter addition (level 1). The rubric's level 1 requires existing rules or parameters to change, which they do not.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0The instruction is stateless. No state access or ordering between gas charging and state access is introduced or changed.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "`CLZ` is a stateless opcode" CLZ accesses no state, so no ordering rule applies.
Blob gas accounting changes0Blob gas is not affected.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification covers only an EVM opcode and does not mention blobs.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "stateless opcode" CLZ writes no state.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund is described.
New transaction types0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No transaction validity changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Transaction validity and intrinsic gas are not changed.
New block / header fields0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No header field is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No encoding changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No serialized schema is changed.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP or structural validation changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Block structure and decoding are not changed.
New fork activation mechanism0Activation only selects the new instruction table, which is ordinary rule selection.
  • eip.md · Specification No state migration or code installation is required.
Engine API changes0No Engine API changes.
  • eip.md · Specification The Engine API is not mentioned.
Transition-tool interface changes0The transition tool's interface does not need to change.
  • eip.md · Specification Only EVM instruction semantics change. No new block, transaction or environment input is introduced.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no new assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification The change adds no log, header, receipt or storage output.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified0Adding a new opcode value to the framework's opcode table is a new parameter value, not a new primitive. Existing bytecode, state and expectation tooling is sufficient.
  • eip.md · Specification — "Pops 1 value from the stack. Pushes a value to the stack" CLZ follows the existing pattern of a fixed-stack, constant-gas arithmetic instruction.
Uncertainty: Registering the opcode in the framework could be read as a local extension (level 1).
Security risks0No security invariant or validation boundary is introduced or changed. Correctness and denial-of-service cost are already covered under opcode and performance testing.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations The opcode is stateless, with constant cost and constant memory.
Uncertainty: Someone could argue for level 1 as a local check against mispriced denial-of-service, but that concern is covered by PERF.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism is introduced or changed. The mention of post-quantum signature schemes in the Motivation refers to applications, not protocol behavior.
  • eip.md · Specification Defines a bit-counting operation with no cryptographic content.
Cross-EIP interactions0CLZ can be tested on its own. No coordinated cross-EIP cases are established from the supplied evidence.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification references no other EIP, and the supplied text gives no interaction.
Uncertainty: If some code-validation scheme active in the same fork (for example an EOF valid-opcode list) applied, a local compatibility check might be needed. No such scheme is supplied or referenced.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus0The result for every input is fully determined. Stack underflow and out-of-gas follow standard EVM rules. The malformed literal in the test vector has only one intended meaning.
  • eip.md · Specification — Python reference The Python reference fully defines the output for every 256-bit input.
  • eip.md · Test Cases — first vector "PUSH32 0x000...0" The first vector's literal has 63 hex digits instead of 64, but it clearly means zero.
Uncertainty: The text names no activating fork, which is outside the normative behavior of the opcode.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@c43098e67b EIPS/eip-7939.md committed 2025-06-09 · information cutoff 2025-07-02T17:49:36Z
Current master · File history · blob 1a4aed0bca · sha256 8f03612a4d19
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-7939.yaml · sha256 224f5e09c1ab
Compare EIP-7939 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.