EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7976: Increase Calldata Floor Cost

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

RetrospectiveAmsterdam / GlamsterdamAssessment cutoff 2025-09-03Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 8

Human Completescore 5 · Checklist revision 1· merged checklist

LLM · Checklist revision 32026-10-08 · Opus 5.5 · primary · 8 Human · Checklist revision 1Complete · 5 CompareHuman vs LLM · shared criteria

Evaluated on: 2026-10-08 · Spec revision: 2025-09-03 · c582d21e50

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7976 changes one parameter of the EIP-7623 calldata floor: TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN goes from 10 to 15, so the floor becomes 15/60 gas per zero/non-zero byte. STANDARD_TOKEN_COST stays at 4. The gasUsed formula, max(standard + execution + creation costs, floor), keeps the same structure as EIP-7623. The validity rule also keeps its structure: a transaction's gas limit must be at least the larger of its intrinsic gas and 21000 + floor * tokens. The EIP adds no new transaction type, header field, opcode, precompile, system contract or encoding.

8LowLow

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v3
Confidence: High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No
Plausible range: 8–8 (Low)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-09-03 · EIP revision c582d21e50 (2025-09-03)

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

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
Edge/boundary conditions2
EVM Gas rule changes1
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms1

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 Rationale contains the typo '45s_000_000/40' and the self-contradictory phrase 'for non zero bytes and maintains proportional costs for non-zero bytes'. Both are non-normative.
Test Case 4 (eth_estimateGas) is public JSON-RPC behavior, outside consensus execution-layer testing.
'Intrinsic gas cost' is not defined for every transaction type in the supplied documents. It is inherited from the baseline.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7976 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	Several families need expected values reworked. These are the EIP-7623 floor/standard crossover tests, the intrinsic-gas and gas-limit validity boundary tests, and other calldata-heavy transaction tests with little execution, which now fall into the wider floor region (execution below 11tokens rather than 6tokens). The rule change is a single parameter, and most ordinary tests with significant execution are unaffected. This fits localized cases in several families (level 2) rather than a common rewrite.	eip.md · Specification — tx.gasUsed formula The floor rises from 10 to 15 per token. Any baseline transaction whose standard cost plus execution falls below 15tokens now has a different gasUsed, and therefore different balances and receipts. eip.md · Specification — Any transaction with a gas limit below `21000 + TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN tokens_in_calldata` The minimum gas limit for validity rises. Baseline cases with gas limits sized to the old floor or to intrinsic gas now become invalid. supporting/eip-7623.md · Specification Baseline floor tests and their expected values are derived from 10. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Without a supplied test suite, it is unclear how many baseline tests fall in the new floor window (6–11 gas per token of execution). If very few do, the score could be 1.
Edge/boundary conditions	2	Two changed rules have boundary-sensitive outcomes: (1) the settlement crossover between the standard and floor costs, and (2) the gas-limit validity threshold. Each depends on zero/non-zero byte mix, contract creation and refunds, but those dimensions are inherited from EIP-7623. No elevated matrix is introduced, so this is level 2.	eip.md · Test Cases — Edge cases: Test transactions at the boundary where execution gas equals or exceeds the floor cost The crossover between the standard and floor branches of max() moves. eip.md · Specification — gas limit below ... (take the maximum of these two calculations) is considered invalid The validity boundary moves, to max(intrinsic, 21000 + 15tokens). Confidence:* Medium Uncertainty: Both rules come from the same parameter. If treated as one mechanism, the score would be 1.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	An existing accounting rule changes a parameter. No new accounting mechanism is added. This matches level 1.	eip.md · Specification — `TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN` \| `15` The only change is the floor parameter, which goes from EIP-7623's 10 to 15. The max() settlement formula is the same as in EIP-7623. supporting/eip-7623.md · Specification — TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN 10 Defines the existing floor mechanism and its value of 10. Confidence: High
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	1	An existing validity bound changes value. There is no new dependency or sequence, so this is level 1.	eip.md · Specification — Any transaction with a gas limit below `21000 + TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN * tokens_in_calldata` The existing floor validity condition now uses 15. supporting/eip-7623.md · Specification — considered invalid The same condition already exists in the baseline. Confidence: High
Security risks	1	The changed condition is the consensus validity and reservation threshold. It can be checked locally and does not change other components' assumptions, so this is level 1.	eip.md · Security Considerations — no additional security concerns are introduced The EIP claims no new attack vectors. Bundling considerations are inherited from EIP-7623. eip.md · Specification — the floor price needs to be reserved in the transaction gas limit The gas-limit reservation boundary changes. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: This could be 0 if a parameter change to an inherited check is not seen as security-sensitive.
Cross-EIP interactions	1	The interactions are local compatibility checks. EIP-7623's mechanism is re-parameterized, so its crossover and validity cases must be re-checked with 15, along with the transition from 10 to 15 at the fork. EIP-3860 initcode cost appears in creation transactions on the standard side of max() and in intrinsic gas. The interactions do not need restructuring or coordinated multi-EIP scenarios beyond those local checks.	eip.md · Specification — changes from EIP-7623's implementation The target reuses EIP-7623's mechanism with a new constant. eip.md · Specification — isContractCreation * (32000 + INITCODE_WORD_COST * words(calldata)) EIP-3860 initcode cost stays in the standard branch. supporting/eip-3860.md · Rules — initcode_cost(initcode) Defines the initcode word cost that is part of intrinsic gas for creation transactions. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Fork-transition cases (floor of 10 before the fork, 15 after) could be argued to be coordinated cross-EIP cases with EIP-7623, which would make this level 2. Interacting EIPs: EIP-7623, EIP-3860

Show 22 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	None.	eip.md · Specification No instructions are introduced.
Modified opcodes	No instruction semantics change.	eip.md · Specification Only transaction-level pricing changes.
Added precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification No precompiles are introduced.
Modified precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification Precompile schedules are untouched.
Added system contracts	None.	eip.md · Specification No contracts are introduced.
Modified system contracts	None.	eip.md · Specification No system contracts are referenced.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.	eip.md · Specification Only transaction-level gas settlement and validity change. No instruction is affected.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas accounting changes.	eip.md · Rationale — Better blob incentivization Blobs come up only as an economic incentive. No blob-gas rule changes.
State gas accounting changes	State-gas accounting does not change.	eip.md · Specification Only the calldata floor pricing changes.
New EVM gas refund	No new refund mechanism.	eip.md · Specification — execution_gas_used ... with the gas refund subtracted The existing refund is still applied inside the standard branch. No new refund is introduced.
New transaction types	None.	eip.md · Specification No new envelope is introduced.
New block / header fields	None.	eip.md · Specification No header fields are added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	None.	eip.md · Specification No schema changes.
Block syncing changes	Changes to execution rules alone do not qualify.	eip.md · Specification No block decoding or structural validation changes.
New fork activation mechanism	Selecting a rule or constant at the fork does not count.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — requires a scheduled network upgrade Only a constant is selected at the fork. No state transition is needed.
Engine API changes	No Engine API change.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — eth_estimateGas Only public JSON-RPC estimation is mentioned. Engine API is not in scope.
Transition-tool interface changes	Fork-aware constant selection needs no interface change.	eip.md · Specification Only a parameter is selected by fork. No new inputs or outputs.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Only existing expected values change, and that counts under PAT.	eip.md · Specification No new output, field or log is introduced.
New test-framework primitives	The baseline already has floor-aware gas-calculation helpers from EIP-7623. A new parameter value is not a new primitive.	eip.md · Specification — parameter table The new floor constant is just a fork parameter value. Uncertainty: If the framework's fork-specific helpers hardcode the EIP-7623 constant, a minor local extension might be needed, which would make this level 1.
Performance risks	Raising the floor shrinks the worst-case calldata bound. No additional or heavier workload needs validation.	eip.md · Rationale — reduces this to approximately 0.72 MB The change lowers the maximum calldata payload size. It does not add workload. Uncertainty: Confirming the reduced worst-case block size could be treated as a component check, which would make this level 1.
Cryptography	No cryptographic changes.	eip.md · Specification No cryptographic content.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	No consensus-visible outcome is left unresolved. The rationale typos do not affect the normative rules.	eip.md · Specification — tx.gasUsed formula The normative formula and validity rule are stated fully. eip.md · Rationale — `45s_000_000/40` The typos and odd phrasing are in non-normative rationale only.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@c582d21e50 EIPS/eip-7976.md committed 2025-09-03 · information cutoff 2025-09-03T20:52:20Z
Current master · File history · blob 4d5904c246 · sha256 0785ed008ee2
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/amsterdam/eip-7976.yaml · sha256 9787cf36e468
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP: supporting/eip-3860.md, supporting/eip-7623.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded · Spec revision: 2025-11-04 · 173fe4aade

5LowLow

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v1
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2025-11-06 · EIP at 173fe4aade
Source: merged ethspecs/pm checklist

Score bands · Checklist revision 1

Low <10
Medium 10–19
High ≥20

24 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 72.

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
EVM Gas rule changes1

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7976 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	Mechanism affects validity, but we only have to pay attention to the fork transition when the values change, as the rest of the scenarios will be automatically updated by updating a few constants.	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	Pattern affects many tests but the test framework is already well prepared for this change due work already done in EIP-7623 testing. However, static tests might break after these change because these have to be manually updated.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	1	Affects an existing mechanism for which tests are already prepared to be automatically updated.	—

Show 21 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 1)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	—
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	—
New block / header fields	No rationale recorded.	—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No rationale recorded.	—
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New fork activation mechanism	No rationale recorded.	—
Engine API changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Engine API encoding changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Transition-tool interface changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Security risks	No rationale recorded.	—
Performance risks	No rationale recorded.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	Contains edge-cases but automatic test generators for these conditions already exist as part of tests for EIP-7623.	—
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	No rationale recorded.	—

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@173fe4aade EIPS/eip-7976.md committed 2025-11-04
EIP master revision at the time of the human checklist commit; the checklist itself does not pin an EIP revision.
Current master · File history · blob 7310f62b56 · sha256 34c48660c11f
Rubric: Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Merged checklist ethspecs/pm@ce4d90eda1 complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7976.md · committed 2025-11-06
blob d3e6776fa9 · sha256 221b4016db2b
Research record: research/tasks/05c-amsterdam-human-assessment-alignment/inputs/human/eip-7976.yaml · sha256 a2808654dc90

The LLM applied checklist revision 3 and the human reviewers revision 1 to EIP-7976 in Amsterdam / Glamsterdam. Revision 3 phrases the same criteria more precisely; differences cover the 23 criteria both revisions share, and each total keeps its own revision. Δ is LLM minus Human.

LLM8Low

Human5Low

Δ total+3Same tier

Criteria19/23agree exactly · 3 differ by 1 · 1 differ by 2+

Confounded comparison. The human checklist evaluated the EIP as it stood when the checklist was written; the LLM evaluated the sealed historical revision. Input alignment: no substantive drift; human hindsight exposure: high exposure.

Exposure evidence

The assessment says generators were already prepared and refers to work completed during EIP-7623 testing and existing static tests.

Every intervening EIP revision is classified non-substantive by Task 01.

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Edge/boundary conditions (+2), New or modified transaction validity mechanisms (−1), Security risks (+1), Cross-EIP interactions (+1)

Show differences only (10 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Edge/boundary conditions	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Two changed rules have boundary-sensitive outcomes: (1) the settlement crossover between the standard and floor costs, and (2) the gas-limit validity threshold. Each depends on zero/non-zero byte mix, contract creation and refunds, but those dimensions are inherited from EIP-7623. No elevated matrix is introduced, so this is level 2. Human Contains edge-cases but automatic test generators for these conditions already exist as part of tests for EIP-7623.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM An existing validity bound changes value. There is no new dependency or sequence, so this is level 1. Human Mechanism affects validity, but we only have to pay attention to the fork transition when the values change, as the rest of the scenarios will be automatically updated by updating a few constants.
Security risks	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The changed condition is the consensus validity and reservation threshold. It can be checked locally and does not change other components' assumptions, so this is level 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Cross-EIP interactions	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The interactions are local compatibility checks. EIP-7623's mechanism is re-parameterized, so its crossover and validity cases must be re-checked with 15, along with the transition from 10 to 15 at the fork. EIP-3860 initcode cost appears in creation transactions on the standard side of max() and in intrinsic gas. The interactions do not need restructuring or coordinated multi-EIP scenarios beyond those local checks. Human No rationale recorded.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No instruction semantics change. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM An existing accounting rule changes a parameter. No new accounting mechanism is added. This matches level 1. Human Affects an existing mechanism for which tests are already prepared to be automatically updated.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas accounting changes. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new refund mechanism. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Changes to execution rules alone do not qualify. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Selecting a rule or constant at the fork does not count. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No Engine API change. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Fork-aware constant selection needs no interface change. Human No rationale recorded.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Several families need expected values reworked. These are the EIP-7623 floor/standard crossover tests, the intrinsic-gas and gas-limit validity boundary tests, and other calldata-heavy transaction tests with little execution, which now fall into the wider floor region (execution below 11tokens rather than 6tokens). The rule change is a single parameter, and most ordinary tests with significant execution are unaffected. This fits localized cases in several families (level 2) rather than a common rewrite. Human Pattern affects many tests but the test framework is already well prepared for this change due work already done in EIP-7623 testing. However, static tests might break after these change because these have to be manually updated.
Performance risks	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Raising the floor shrinks the worst-case calldata bound. No additional or heavier workload needs validation. Human No rationale recorded.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic changes. Human No rationale recorded.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM State-gas accounting does not change. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API encoding changes	n/a	0	—	Only in revision 1	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Only existing expected values change, and that counts under PAT. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM The baseline already has floor-aware gas-calculation helpers from EIP-7623. A new parameter value is not a new primitive. Human No rationale recorded.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	0	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM No consensus-visible outcome is left unresolved. The rationale typos do not affect the normative rules. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-7976 with other assessments All Amsterdam / Glamsterdam 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.

OP+
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.
PC+
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.
ORD
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.
SGAS
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.
ENC
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.
ACT
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).
T8N
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.).
INV
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.

XEIP
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.
UNSP
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.