EIP complexity assessment

EIP-7981: Increase Access List 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 2025-08-26Included by cutoffLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 11

Human Completescore 6 · Checklist revision 1· merged checklist

LLM · Checklist revision 32026-10-08 · Opus 5.5 · primary · 11 Human · Checklist revision 1Complete · 6 CompareHuman vs LLM · shared criteria

Evaluated on: 2026-10-08 · Spec revision: 2025-08-24 · acc2533ec9

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-7981, at the assessed revision, adds a per-byte data charge to the intrinsic gas of transactions that carry an access list. The charge is 40 gas for each non-zero byte and 10 gas for each zero byte, counted across all 20-byte addresses and 32-byte storage keys. It is added on top of the existing EIP-2930 per-address cost (2400) and per-storage-key cost (1900). The reference implementation applies it to access-list, fee-market, blob and set-code transactions and leaves the EIP-7623 calldata floor value unchanged. The stated goal is to stop access lists being used to get around EIP-7623 floor pricing and to reduce maximum block size.

11LowLow

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v3
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 2 criteria affected
Plausible range: 11–12 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff: 2025-08-26 · EIP revision acc2533ec9 (2025-08-24)

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

New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
Cross-EIP interactions2
EVM Gas rule changes1

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: Only one minor gap exists. The prose does not state whether access-list bytes count toward EIP-7623 floor tokens. Case 3's wording is vague, but the formula and the reference implementation imply they do not.

Plausible total

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

Affected criteria (2)

Cross-EIP interactions (2)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (1)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (1)

Do access-list bytes contribute to tokens_in_calldata for the EIP-7623 floor? The reference implementation implies no.

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (2)

Case 3 says calldata is 'Applied through EIP-7623 mechanism', but it does not say how the access-list data cost relates to the floor.
Whether the per-byte access-list charge is a new accounting mechanism or a changed parameter of the existing intrinsic-gas rule affects the GAS level (1 versus 3).

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7981 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	The intrinsic-gas validity rule changes. Dedicated threshold cases are needed for each access-list-capable transaction type, for byte composition, and for the comparison against the floor. Existing validation sequencing and test construction remain usable, so this is level 2.	eip.md · Reference Implementation - calculate_intrinsic_cost Intrinsic gas used for validity now includes the access-list data cost for four transaction types. supporting/eip-7623.md · Specification - 'take the maximum of these two calculations' Validity requires the gas limit to be at least the maximum of intrinsic gas and the floor. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: This could be seen as only an existing condition with a changed bound, which is level 1.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	Ordinary cases throughout the access-list family need new expected gas and balances. Localized cases also need rework in other families that use non-empty access lists, including EIP-7623 floor tests, blob transactions, set-code transactions and intrinsic-gas validity tests. Empty access lists are unaffected, so there is no common rewrite across all families. This is level 2.	eip.md · Reference Implementation - 'AccessListTransaction, FeeMarketTransaction, BlobTransaction, SetCodeTransaction' Every typed transaction with a non-empty access list gets a higher intrinsic cost. eip.md · Test Cases - Case 1 A normal access list costs 54.2% more, so expected gas and balances change. supporting/eip-2930.md · Specification - 'we charge additional gas for the access list' Baseline access-list tests expect only per-item charges. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: How often baseline tests outside the access-list family use non-empty access lists is estimated, not measured.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified	2	Coordinated cases are needed with EIP-7623, for transactions that combine calldata and access lists near the crossover between the floor and the standard cost, and at the validity threshold. EIP-2930 access-list behavior needs compatibility checks: duplicates and warm-set effects are unchanged, and only the charge changes. This is level 2.	eip.md · Motivation The EIP is explicitly designed around EIP-7623 floor pricing. supporting/eip-7623.md · Specification - gasUsed max formula Gas used is the maximum of the standard cost plus execution and the floor. The higher intrinsic cost changes which side applies. supporting/eip-2930.md · Specification - process_access_list The per-item costs and duplicate handling that EIP-7981 adds to. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Interactions with the blob and set-code transaction types are implied by the reference implementation but not supported by supplied EIP documents. Interacting EIPs: EIP-7623, EIP-2930
EVM Gas rule changes	1	An existing intrinsic-gas rule changes: the access-list cost gains a per-byte term. Per-byte data pricing is an existing pattern from calldata. No new kind of metering or settlement is added, so this is level 1.	eip.md · Specification - 'The formula for access list costs changes to' The access-list intrinsic cost becomes the existing per-item cost plus 40 or 10 gas per access-list byte. eip.md · Reference Implementation - calculate_intrinsic_cost The data cost is added to the existing intrinsic gas sum. The floor value is returned unchanged. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Byte counting over access-list contents could be read as a new accounting mechanism. Because it also changes baseline gas results, that reading would give level 3.
New test-framework primitives	1	The framework's fork-aware intrinsic-gas calculator needs a local extension to count access-list bytes. No new abstraction is required, so this is level 1.	eip.md · Reference Implementation - count_access_list_bytes Intrinsic gas now depends on counting zero and non-zero bytes in access-list contents. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Whether the calculator already has a per-fork access-list hook is not evidenced.
Security risks	1	The changed intrinsic-gas check can be validated locally (no underpricing, correct rejection at the boundary) without changing other components' assumptions. This is level 1.	eip.md · Security Considerations The change reduces maximum block size from access lists. eip.md · Motivation - 'circumvent EIP-7623' The aim is to close a pricing loophole. Confidence: Medium
Edge/boundary conditions	1	One boundary-sensitive mechanism changes: the intrinsic-gas threshold, which is now byte-composition dependent and compared against the floor (gas limit exactly at the threshold versus one below). This is level 1.	eip.md · Specification - 'access_list_nonzero_bytes and access_list_zero_bytes' The cost depends on byte composition: zero addresses or keys versus non-zero ones. supporting/eip-7623.md · Specification - 'Any transaction with a gas limit below ... is considered invalid' Validity requires the gas limit to be at least the maximum of intrinsic gas and the floor. The access-list data cost moves the intrinsic side. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The comparison between intrinsic gas and the floor could be counted as a second interacting dimension. It still involves one changed mechanism.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	1	Whether access-list bytes contribute to EIP-7623 floor tokens is not stated in prose. However, the formula and the reference implementation support one outcome: they are added only to intrinsic gas. Duplicate entries are charged per occurrence by the loop. This is a localized omission with one intended outcome, so level 1.	eip.md · Test Cases - Case 3 - 'New calldata cost: Applied through EIP-7623 mechanism' The text does not say explicitly whether access-list bytes enter the floor token count. eip.md · Reference Implementation - 'calldata_floor_gas_cost' The floor is returned unchanged. Access-list data cost is only added to intrinsic gas. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The Case 3 wording could be read as implying a floor interaction. If that reading competed normatively, this would be level 2.

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No new instruction is introduced.	eip.md · Specification No new opcode.
Modified opcodes	No instruction's semantics or availability changes.	eip.md · Specification Opcode semantics are unchanged.
Added precompiles	No new precompile is introduced.	eip.md · Specification No new precompile.
Modified precompiles	No precompile semantics or gas schedule changes.	eip.md · Specification No precompile changes.
Added system contracts	No system contract is introduced.	eip.md · Specification No system contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts	No system contract's rules or surrounding behavior change.	eip.md · Specification No system contract is involved.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.	eip.md · Specification Only intrinsic gas pricing changes. Warm-loading of access-list entries and opcode behavior are untouched.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas accounting rule changes.	eip.md · Reference Implementation Blob transactions are only affected through their access list's intrinsic cost. Blob gas is not touched.
State gas accounting changes	No state-gas accounting rule changes.	eip.md · Specification The change is a data-footprint charge on transaction bytes, not on state writes.
New EVM gas refund	No new refund mechanism is introduced.	eip.md · Specification No refund is introduced.
New transaction types	No new transaction envelope is introduced.	eip.md · Reference Implementation Only existing transaction types are affected.
New block / header fields	No EL block or header member is added.	eip.md · Specification No header field is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No serialized schema or codec changes.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility - 'gas repricing' The access-list format is unchanged. Only pricing changes.
Block syncing changes	Only execution rules change, so block import and sync validation is unaffected.	eip.md · Specification No block decoding or structural change.
New fork activation mechanism	No activation-specific state transition is required.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility - 'requires a scheduled network upgrade' Only a rule change at the fork.
Engine API changes	No Engine API change.	eip.md · Specification No Engine API field or endpoint is mentioned.
Transition-tool interface changes	No interface field or mechanism change is required.	eip.md · Reference Implementation The tool computes intrinsic gas internally from fields it already receives.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Baseline tests need no additional assertion; changed gas values are rework, not new invariants.	eip.md · Specification No new header, receipt or log output is introduced.
Performance risks	The change only makes a workload more expensive and lowers its bound. No additional workload capacity needs performance validation.	eip.md · Rationale - Maximum Block Size Impact Maximum access-list block size falls from about 607 KB to about 362 KB. Uncertainty: Byte-counting overhead in intrinsic-gas calculation is trivial and unevidenced as a concern.
Cryptography	No cryptographic mechanism or validation rule changes.	eip.md · Specification No cryptographic content.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@acc2533ec9 EIPS/eip-7981.md committed 2025-08-24 · information cutoff 2025-08-26T21:52:26Z
Current master · File history · blob 7947d1cc63 · sha256 061e4fa54001
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-7981.yaml · sha256 eabf796914c9
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP: supporting/eip-2930.md, supporting/eip-7623.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded · Spec revision: 2025-09-04 · 5aea12c20e

6LowLow

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v1
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2025-12-04 · EIP at 5aea12c20e
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

EVM Gas rule changes2
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms1
Edge/boundary conditions1

Criterion breakdown

EIP-7981 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
EVM Gas rule changes	2	It's a small change but we also have to update the intrinsic gas cost calculator and probably its interface used in many access list tests to include checking the bytes in them.	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	We have to update tests that rely on the exact intrinsic gas cost of the transactions and use access lists. Mid complexity because number of tests is not that many.	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	1	Modifies the intrinsic gas cost calculation.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	1	Checks for the type of byte require boundary condition checks but minimal complexity.	—

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 1)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Modified opcodes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New block / header fields	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New fork activation mechanism	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Engine API changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Engine API encoding changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Transition-tool interface changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Security risks	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Performance risks	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Cross-EIP interactions	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@5aea12c20e EIPS/eip-7981.md committed 2025-09-04
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 f621574739 · sha256 558a702401bf
Rubric: Checklist revision 1 · ethspecs/pm@d936bcb349
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Merged checklist ethspecs/pm@eb0d24aec5 complexity_assessments/EIPs/EIP-7981.md · committed 2025-12-04
blob 69f777a90c · sha256 7bbd980c0a04
Research record: research/tasks/05c-amsterdam-human-assessment-alignment/inputs/human/eip-7981.yaml · sha256 d6bacd2127c0

The LLM applied checklist revision 3 and the human reviewers revision 1 to EIP-7981 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.

LLM11Low

Human6Low

Δ total+5Same 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: substantive drift; human hindsight exposure: high exposure.

Exposure evidence

The assessment reasons from an existing intrinsic-gas calculator interface used by many access-list tests.

Substantive intervening revisions: Re-parameterises the surcharge in terms of the EIP-7623 token abstraction. The two EIP-owned constants ACCESS_LIST_NONZERO_BYTE_COST and ACCESS_LIST_ZERO_BYTE_COST are replaced in the parameter table by TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN = 10, sourced from EIP-7623, and the formula becomes access_list_tokens = nonzero * 4 + zero followed by access_list_data_cost = access_list_tokens * TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN. Description, Abstract and Motivation are rewritten (adding the '~21% worst-case block size reduction' claim and the 'contributing to EVM gas while still lea…

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Cross-EIP interactions (+2), EVM Gas rule changes (−1), New or modified transaction validity mechanisms (+1), Security risks (+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
Cross-EIP interactions	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Coordinated cases are needed with EIP-7623, for transactions that combine calldata and access lists near the crossover between the floor and the standard cost, and at the validity threshold. EIP-2930 access-list behavior needs compatibility checks: duplicates and warm-set effects are unchanged, and only the charge changes. This is level 2. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM An existing intrinsic-gas rule changes: the access-list cost gains a per-byte term. Per-byte data pricing is an existing pattern from calldata. No new kind of metering or settlement is added, so this is level 1. Human It's a small change but we also have to update the intrinsic gas cost calculator and probably its interface used in many access list tests to include checking the bytes in them.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The intrinsic-gas validity rule changes. Dedicated threshold cases are needed for each access-list-capable transaction type, for byte composition, and for the comparison against the floor. Existing validation sequencing and test construction remain usable, so this is level 2. Human Modifies the intrinsic gas cost calculation.
Security risks	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The changed intrinsic-gas check can be validated locally (no underpricing, correct rejection at the boundary) without changing other components' assumptions. This is level 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new instruction is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No instruction's semantics or availability changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new precompile is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile semantics or gas schedule changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract's rules or surrounding behavior change. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas accounting rule changes. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new refund mechanism is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new transaction envelope is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No EL block or header member is added. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No serialized schema or codec changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Only execution rules change, so block import and sync validation is unaffected. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No activation-specific state transition is required. 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 No interface field or mechanism change is required. Human No rationale recorded.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Ordinary cases throughout the access-list family need new expected gas and balances. Localized cases also need rework in other families that use non-empty access lists, including EIP-7623 floor tests, blob transactions, set-code transactions and intrinsic-gas validity tests. Empty access lists are unaffected, so there is no common rewrite across all families. This is level 2. Human We have to update tests that rely on the exact intrinsic gas cost of the transactions and use access lists. Mid complexity because number of tests is not that many.
Performance risks	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The change only makes a workload more expensive and lowers its bound. No additional workload capacity needs performance validation. Human No rationale recorded.
Edge/boundary conditions	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM One boundary-sensitive mechanism changes: the intrinsic-gas threshold, which is now byte-composition dependent and compared against the floor (gas limit exactly at the threshold versus one below). This is level 1. Human Checks for the type of byte require boundary condition checks but minimal complexity.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic mechanism or validation rule 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 No state-gas accounting rule changes. 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 Baseline tests need no additional assertion; changed gas values are rework, not new invariants. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	1	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM The framework's fork-aware intrinsic-gas calculator needs a local extension to count access-list bytes. No new abstraction is required, so this is level 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	1	n/a	—	Only in revision 3	Show rationale LLM Whether access-list bytes contribute to EIP-7623 floor tokens is not stated in prose. However, the formula and the reference implementation support one outcome: they are added only to intrinsic gas. Duplicate entries are charged per occurrence by the loop. This is a localized omission with one intended outcome, so level 1. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-7981 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.