Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7951: Precompile for secp256r1 Curve Support

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 2025-07-02Included by cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 9
Human Not available· Human complexity assessments were not produced for this fork; only the LLM assessment exists.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2025-07-01 · d386b29b5a

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7951, at the revision supplied, adds one native precompile, P256VERIFY, at address 0x100. It performs ECDSA signature verification over secp256r1 (P-256). It accepts exactly 160 bytes (h, r, s, qx, qy) and charges a constant 3450 gas. It returns 32 bytes holding 1 for a valid signature and empty output for any failure, and it never reverts. It requires r and s in (0, n), qx and qy below p, an on-curve public key that is not the point at infinity, a check that the computed R' is not infinity, and a comparison of R'.x with r modulo n. It is described as interface-compatible with RIP-7212 and as fixing RIP-7212's missing infinity check and non-modular comparison.

9LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range
7–10 (Low)
Assessment cutoff
2025-07-02 · EIP revision d386b29b5a (2025-07-01)
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. Edge/boundary conditions2
  2. Added precompiles1
  3. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1
  4. Security risks1

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: Minor gaps: the spec does not explicitly state that 0x100 is in the warm precompile set, the referenced test vectors are not supplied, the reference-implementation sentence is truncated, and the infinity-encoding and on-curve checks overlap. All failures give the same empty output, so outcomes are largely determined.

Plausible total

7–10
recorded score 9 · plausible tiers Low

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (2)
  • Is address 0x100 included in the pre-warmed precompile address set from fork activation?
  • What do the referenced (unsupplied) test vectors cover?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The EIP says (0,0) encodes infinity, but (0,0) is already off-curve, so check 5 is redundant with check 4.
  • The message hash h is not reduced or bounded; implementations must handle h ≥ n consistently.
  • Cases where R'.x ≥ n and where R' is infinity need specially crafted vectors that are hard to construct.
  • Address 0x100 lies outside the contiguous low precompile range; warm-set treatment is implied but not stated.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7951 Osaka / Fusaka: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Edge/boundary conditions2Multiple boundary-sensitive mechanisms are introduced: length, r/s range, coordinate range, curve membership, R' infinity and the modular x-comparison. Each can be tested largely independently, so there is no elevated matrix.
  • eip.md · Input Validation Several independent boundary rules: exact length 160, 0<r<n and 0<s<n, qx and qy < p, on-curve, not infinity.
  • eip.md · Signature Verification Algorithm R' infinity check and r' ≡ r (mod n) comparison, where R'.x may exceed n.
  • eip.md · Encoding of Scalars Scalar h is not required to be below n.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Constructing the R'.x ≥ n case and the R' = infinity case needs specially crafted vectors. These are hard to build but are not interacting dimensions.
Added precompiles1Exactly one precompile, with a fixed supported input length and constant gas, which makes it simple.
  • eip.md · Precompile P256VERIFY at 0x100 with constant 3450 gas.
  • eip.md · Input Fixed 160-byte supported input.
Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified1Rework is confined to boundary cases in the precompile-address and warm-access family: calls to 0x100 now return precompile output and are warm. Ordinary tests are unaffected.
  • eip.md · Precompile Address 0x100 becomes a precompile, so baseline cases that treat 0x100 as an ordinary empty account, or that enumerate precompile addresses, change expectation.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Whether any baseline tests target 0x100 is not evidenced, so this could be 0.
Security risks1Security conditions such as input validation and deterministic verification can be checked locally, for example by differential fuzzing of the precompile. No other component's assumptions change.
  • eip.md · Security Fixes The R' infinity check and modular comparison prevent implementation-dependent results and consensus failures.
  • eip.md · Malleability Signatures are malleable; non-malleability is left to applications.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Applications migrating from RIP-7212 assumptions are outside EL testing.
Performance risks1Component benchmarks of the precompile, including worst-case inputs, are enough to validate the 3450 gas pricing. Baseline end-to-end assumptions do not change.
  • eip.md · Gas Cost Justification 3450 gas is justified by benchmarking against ECRECOVER (about 15% more expensive).
  • eip.md · Side-Channel Resistance Constant-time algorithms are not required, so worst-case inputs may vary in cost.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Benchmark data is not supplied.
Cryptography1Exactly one established mechanism (P-256 ECDSA verification), with NIST standards and a referenced test-vector set as resources.
  • eip.md · Curve Parameters Standard NIST SP 800-186 secp256r1 parameters.
  • eip.md · Signature Verification Algorithm ECDSA verification per FIPS 186-5, with explicit input validation, an R'-at-infinity check and modular comparison.
  • eip.md · Test Cases References a test-vector file for implementations.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The test-vector file is not supplied. Validation details that are Ethereum-specific (unreduced h, empty output on failure) need custom cases, but these remain within established ECDSA semantics.
Cross-EIP interactions1Only local compatibility checks are needed: calling via CALL, STATICCALL and DELEGATECALL, warm-access treatment of 0x100, and out-of-gas handling. The precompile can otherwise be tested independently. No candidate interacting EIPs were supplied.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Interface compatibility with RIP-7212 (address, input/output, gas).
  • eip.md · Precompile A new precompile address interacts with general precompile call semantics (warm access, call variants, gas forwarding).
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The interaction with the warm-access rules is implied, not stated.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1These are minor localized omissions. The surrounding rules support one intended outcome: treating 0x100 like other precompiles and returning empty output on all failures. There are no competing normative outcomes.
  • eip.md · Precompile States the address and gas, but does not explicitly state inclusion in the warm precompile set, or the fork-activation behavior of 0x100.
  • eip.md · Point of Infinity Encoding (0,0) is called the infinity encoding but is also off-curve; checks 4 and 5 overlap, yet both give the same failure outcome.
  • eip.md · Reference Implementation No reference implementation; the sentence is truncated.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The withheld test-vector file might resolve some edge outcomes.
Show 20 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcodes are added.
  • eip.md · Specification No new instruction.
Modified opcodes0Changed callee behavior through unchanged instructions does not count.
  • eip.md · Precompile Only callee behavior at 0x100 changes; call instructions are unchanged.
Modified precompiles0No existing L1 precompile changes.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility RIP-7212 is an L2 precompile, not an existing mainnet (Prague) precompile.
Added system contracts0Precompiles are excluded from this criterion.
  • eip.md · Precompile Native precompile, not an EVM system contract.
Modified system contracts0No system contract changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are touched.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified0Constant precompile fees are ordinary contract fees under the template. No metering, limit or settlement rule changes.
  • eip.md · Gas Schedule / P256VERIFY operation Constant 3450 gas fee for the new precompile; no execution-gas accounting rule is changed.
  • eip.md · Gas Burning on Error Invalid inputs consume the same gas as success; this is a fixed precompile fee, not a new accounting mechanism.
Uncertainty: Adding a precompile address implicitly extends the pre-warmed precompile address set (an access-cost effect for address 0x100). The EIP does not state this, and it could arguably count as a level-1 parameter change.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes, and no new state-accessing operation is introduced.
  • eip.md · Precompile Introduces a stateless precompile; no instruction ordering is specified or changed.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No blob-related content.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting changes.
  • eip.md · Specification The precompile performs no state writes; no state-gas rules are mentioned.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Gas Schedule Only a constant charge; no refund is introduced.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Precompile outputs are excluded.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction validity or intrinsic gas changes.
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header fields.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0Precompile input formats are not listed serialized protocol objects.
  • eip.md · Points and Encoding Encodings apply only to precompile calldata, not to protocol objects.
Block syncing changes0No RLP or structural block validation changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No block structure changes.
New fork activation mechanism0Rule selection alone does not count.
  • eip.md · Precompile Native precompile activated by rule selection; no state migration or code installation.
Engine API changes0No Engine API changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API content.
Transition-tool interface changes0Only fork-aware precompile activation is needed; there is no interface change.
  • eip.md · Specification No new block, transaction or environment inputs or outputs are introduced.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no new assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification No new log, header, receipt field or protocol-mandated write.
New test-framework primitives0Testing uses standard precompile-call patterns and vectors. Vectors are data, not new primitives.
  • eip.md · Test Cases Test vectors are provided as a JSON data file; precompile call tests use existing call constructions.
Uncertainty: Generating valid P-256 signatures for custom cases may need a signing helper (a local extension, level 1), but adding a library is arguably not a framework primitive.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@d386b29b5a EIPS/eip-7951.md committed 2025-07-01 · information cutoff 2025-07-02T17:49:36Z
Current master · File history · blob f4600e688b · sha256 4fca0c5daef3
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-7951.yaml · sha256 95877a4122b7
Compare EIP-7951 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.