Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8025: Optional Execution Proofs

Assessed in Hegotá. The score describes the EIP text available at the snapshot, not the EIP as it stands today.

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-08-25PFI at snapshotLayers: execution, consensus
LLM Completescore 21
Human Pending· No STEEL checklist existed on the ethspecs/pm default branch or in any open pull request at the snapshot.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2 · Inclusion status at snapshot: PFI

Scope at the cutoff. Assessment of the execution-layer surface only: the stateless execution guest, witness construction, schema-prefixed SSZ input/output, payload-request binding, and proof-generation/verification implications. Consensus-layer gossip, req/resp, discovery, beacon-state processing, and fork-choice behavior are boundary context and are not scored as execution-layer complexity.

21MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 6 criteria affected
Plausible range
17–25 (Medium–High)
Snapshot
2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)
Score bands · Checklist revision 2
  • 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. Cross-EIP interactions4
  2. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  3. Performance risks3
  4. Edge/boundary conditions3

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: Material execution-layer details remain open: concrete proof systems and ProofType-to-guest/verifier dispatch, the exact adaptation between the proof's chain configuration and the guest's chain/schema output, production fork-rule selection, and the conformance-runner interface. The separate consensus-layer threshold k is also open but is not used to score the execution surface.

Plausible total

17–25
recorded score 21 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • Which concrete proof systems and ProofType values are supported, and how is each value bound to an exact guest program and verifier?
  • How is PublicInput.chain_config mapped to or checked against the execution guest's chain_id and schema_id result?
  • What fork-activation data is supplied to a production guest, and what exact timestamp/fork-selection failures must it return?
  • Is the stateless guest exercised through a new transition-tool mechanism or a standalone conformance runner, and what reusable expectations are required?
  • What value of k defines proof verification on the consensus side, noting that this does not affect the execution-layer score?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The abstract describes proof verification as a path that decouples verification from re-execution, while the current optional phase explicitly requires proof-verifying nodes to continue re-executing and treats proofs only as a supplementary signal; this assessment uses the normative optional-phase behavior.
  • PublicInput is shown with chain_config, while the execution guest's public result exposes chain_id and schema_id; the exact cross-component binding is not fully spelled out in the EIP text.
  • Consensus networking and proof retention are substantial but intentionally do not contribute to execution-layer anchors such as block syncing or Engine API changes.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8025 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactionsExceptional4There are strong coordinated interactions with 4844 (blob hashes and blob fields), 6110 (deposits), 7002 (withdrawals), 7251 (consolidations), 7688 (progressive SSZ), 7732 (delayed execution-validation window and payload context), 7928 (BAL and access tracker), and 8282 (builder requests). The uncapped rule gives base score 3 for strong multi-EIP interdependence plus 1 for the first complete group of three among the five interactions beyond the first three.

Exceptional score: Score 4 is mechanically required by the uncapped anchor: eight interacting EIPs produce base 3 plus floor((8 - 3) / 3) = 1, and each changes a distinct input, schema, timing, or witness axis requiring coordinated cases.

  • eip.md · Front matter > requires The proposal explicitly requires EIPs 4844, 6110, 7002, 7251, 7688, 7732, 7928, and 8282.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Stateless input and output NewPayloadRequest and its SSZ commitment combine blob hashes, three established request families, two builder request families, progressive SSZ, delayed execution context, and the BAL.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Host-side input construction Witness generation reuses the BAL tracker and must cover request-driven system actions and fork-specific payload execution.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: All eight interactions are explicit in the sealed package; no unidentified interaction is added.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-4844, EIP-6110, EIP-7002, EIP-7251, EIP-7688, EIP-7732, EIP-7928, EIP-8282
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3The proposal introduces a new schema-versioned SSZ encoding at the execution host/guest interface, satisfying the rubric's binary interface-level encoding anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > SSZ encoding A new host/guest interface serializes StatelessInput as a two-byte schema ID followed by SSZ and serializes a structured SSZ result.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Stateless input and output The public payload-request commitment is an SSZ hash-tree-root binding.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: This is a new proof-stack interface encoding, not a replacement of transaction or block RLP.
Performance risksUnder-specified3Proving performance cannot be fully isolated from payload execution, state/trie access, witness shape, and proof-system choice, and the proposal identifies a substantial, superlinear proving burden with complex interactions.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Host-side input construction Witness construction is coupled to block execution, trie data, code reads, ancestor headers, and post-state-root reconstruction.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Verifier-prover decentralisation asymmetry Provers retain full EL state and run a non-trivial stack whose cost scales as O(n log^2 n) in witnessed computation size.
  • eip.md · Rationale > Build operational experience Proof size, generation latency, verifier throughput, and prover diversity require live operational measurement.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Concrete proof systems are unpinned, so exact resource envelopes remain unknown.
Edge/boundary conditions3Multiple boundary-prone mechanisms compose across malformed schemas, empty or non-contiguous header witnesses, trie-node completeness, code and public-key lists, invalid execution, fork selection, and post-state reconstruction. Witness completeness across arbitrary blocks requires an elevated case count.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation Cases include decode failure sentinels, bounded and contiguous ancestor headers, missing witness data, invalid payloads, and transaction-key verification.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Host-side input construction Witness creation must capture reads, writes, code, ancestors, and sibling trie nodes while reproducing the expected post-state root.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > SSZ encoding Schema IDs, progressive collections, and several fixed byte/header bounds add serialization boundaries.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Concrete proof-format boundaries remain unknown and are not added to this score.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified2Reusable EIP-specific primitives are needed to assemble witnesses and payload requests, serialize the guest input, run it, and assert structured success or sentinel-failure output.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Stateless input and output Tests must construct a new StatelessInput and check a new StatelessValidationResult.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > SSZ encoding Inputs require schema-prefixed SSZ and progressive-container/list serialization with fixed subordinate bounds.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package does not specify whether these helpers are framework expectations/modifiers or a standalone runner.
Security risksUnder-specified2Soundness and binding interact with several critical execution components and require targeted review and fuzzing, but the optional design preserves ordinary re-execution and bounds failure to an opted-in node's local signal.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer Acceptance binds proof verification to the guest program, successful result, payload-request root, chain ID, and schema ID.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation Security-sensitive logic covers witness-backed state, state-root recomputation, fork rules, payload validity, and transaction-signature/public-key equivalence.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations > Soundness and consensus implications Proof results remain supplementary and cannot alter fork choice or consensus state in this optional phase.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Security assumptions of the concrete proof systems are not specified; load-bearing proof use is explicitly outside this EIP.
CryptographyUnder-specified2Proving full stateless payload validation is one novel cryptographic mechanism, while the concrete proof system is deliberately not fixed; this fits the single-novel-mechanism anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification > Terminology A proof system proves guest computation and may vary in proof format, verifier logic, cost, and security assumptions.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The execution result is accepted only after proof verification and binding to the expected guest, request root, chain, and schema.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Concrete proof systems and their testing resources are not identified, so the eventual mechanism count may differ.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Interoperable execution-proof tests require localized agreement on proof-type to guest/verifier dispatch, public-input binding, and production fork selection. These are open but do not make previously unobservable EVM behavior consensus-critical in this optional phase.
  • eip.md · Specification > Consensus Layer > Proof types and containers ProofType values and new proof systems are socialized out of band, with proof-system support configured dynamically.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer Verification expects an exact guest plus request-root, chain, and schema binding, but no concrete proof-system/guest registry is defined.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation Production implementations must add a fork-activation timestamp comparison whose exact configuration path is not specified.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The consensus-layer threshold k is also open, but is excluded from this execution-layer score.
Show 20 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation The guest reuses ordinary block execution and introduces no instruction definition.
Uncertainty: None.
Modified opcodes0No existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation Existing execution is run against WitnessState without specifying any changed opcode result.
Uncertainty: State-backend substitution must preserve opcode behavior and is tested as equivalence, not scored as a modification.
Added precompiles0No precompile is added.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The specified components do not include a precompile.
Uncertainty: Proof verification is delegated to a proof node and is not exposed as an EVM precompile.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation The normal payload path is replayed without a precompile logic or gas-schedule change.
Uncertainty: None.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced by EIP-8025.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The execution-layer additions are off-chain host/guest and witness components.
Uncertainty: System contracts from required EIPs remain dependency interactions.
Modified system contracts0Existing system-contract execution must be witnessed, but no contract code, state transition, or behavior is modified directly or indirectly.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Stateless input and output > ExecutionWitness Ancestor headers let the guest reproduce recent block hashes and existing system-contract logic.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Host-side input construction The witness records existing state accesses rather than changing contract behavior or state.
Uncertainty: None; observability for proving is not a behavioral modification.
EVM Gas rule changes0The proposal proves and replays existing execution rules; it specifies no new or modified EVM gas-accounting rule.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation The guest invokes the normal payload-validation and block-execution path against witness-backed state.
  • eip.md · Abstract The optional mechanism is stated not to change consensus validity rules.
Uncertainty: No gas schedule or gas-charging site is introduced in the package.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0EIP-8025 observes existing accesses to build a witness and substitutes a state backend; it does not move gas checks or state accesses inside any opcode.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Host-side input construction Witness construction consumes data gathered by the existing block-level read/write tracker used for BAL construction.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation The guest uses the normal execution path with WitnessState replacing the pre-state database.
Uncertainty: Ordering requirements belonging to EIP-7928 are a dependency interaction, not a change made by EIP-8025.
Blob gas accounting changes0Blob data and accounting fields are inputs to stateless validation, but EIP-8025 does not alter their accounting mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Stateless input and output NewPayloadRequest carries existing blob versioned hashes and the payload carries existing blob gas fields.
  • supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification > Gas accounting EIP-4844 defines the blob-gas mechanism that EIP-8025's guest validates.
Uncertainty: None; the blob mechanism is consumed unchanged.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas cost, state-byte rate, state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill path is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The execution-layer changes are a stateless guest and prover-side guest-input construction.
Uncertainty: Witness construction changes data availability for execution, not the cost of writing state.
New EVM gas refund0The proposal introduces no EVM gas-refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation Payload execution follows the normal execution-engine path without a new refund operation.
Uncertainty: None; refunds are not changed or newly exposed by the proposal.
New transaction types0No transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Stateless input and output Existing serialized transactions are carried inside ExecutionPayload; no transaction envelope is defined.
Uncertainty: None.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Supplied public keys are an optimization input that must reproduce existing signature recovery; transaction validity and intrinsic-gas rules are unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation The guest uses the normal new-payload path and verifies supplied public keys against the existing transaction signatures.
Uncertainty: The new guest needs equivalence tests, but it does not create a new transaction-validity rule.
New block / header fields0EIP-8025 adds proof-stack input fields, not a field to the canonical execution block or header.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Stateless input and output StatelessInput packages an existing NewPayloadRequest, witness, chain ID, and public keys without defining a new canonical block/header field.
Uncertainty: Payload fields originating in required EIPs are scored as interactions, not as fields introduced by EIP-8025.
Block syncing changes0No execution block-RLP validation mechanism is added. The proposal's explicit proof-sync protocols are consensus-layer behavior and are excluded from this execution-only score.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The execution-layer surface adds guest validation and witness construction, not block RLP validation.
  • eip.md · Specification > Consensus Layer > Req/resp domain Proof backfill and synchronization protocols are specified on the consensus layer.
Uncertainty: None; the cross-layer boundary is explicit.
New fork activation mechanism0Selecting and checking fork rules in the guest does not modify state or an existing internal variable at the activation block; no activation transition is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Guest validation Production guests must compare the payload timestamp with fork activation data, while the reference shape uses one implementation per fork.
Uncertainty: The exact production fork-configuration input and comparison are under-specified, but initialization or selection is not a score-3 modification.
Engine API changes0EIP-8025 consumes the dependency-defined NewPayloadRequest and adds a distinct proof-engine protocol; it specifies no new Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Stateless input and output The host consumes NewPayloadRequest as payload data supplied by the consensus layer.
  • eip.md · Specification > Consensus Layer > Proof engine interface ProofEngine is a separate interface merely modeled on the Engine API.
Uncertainty: Any transport mapping between an EL host and proof node is implementation-dependent and not an Engine API change in the package.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified0The new stateless guest is a separate mechanism; the package does not require a field or mechanism in the state transition tool interface.
  • eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer > Stateless input and output The proposal defines a separate guest input/output interface rather than a transition-tool field.
  • eip.md · Test Cases No transition-tool interface addition is specified.
Uncertainty: A test implementation could choose to expose the guest through a transition tool, but that interface is not specified.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0The package supports adding a dedicated stateless-validation suite, but does not require existing execution tests to be reworked.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The feature is fully opt-in, changes no consensus validity rules, and leaves non-participating nodes unchanged.
  • eip.md · Test Cases The proposal points to dedicated execution-layer conformance tests.
Uncertainty: The package does not describe how much of an existing payload corpus would be reused by the new guest suite.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Existing tests need not additionally assert a proof, witness, or stateless result; those outputs belong to the opt-in feature's own tests.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Nodes outside the optional modes have unchanged behavior and duties.
  • eip.md · Rationale > Build operational experience Proofs are non-critical artifacts and are not placed on the fork-choice or attestation path.
Uncertainty: None material for pre-existing tests in the sealed proposal.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8025.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 6287bacd18 · sha256 d6131d778d89
Rubric
Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator
gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/08-hegota-prospective-complexity-assessment/outputs/assessments/hegota-pfi-2026-08-26/eip-8025.yaml · sha256 95df960b863b
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-4844.md, supporting/eip-6110.md, supporting/eip-7002.md, supporting/eip-7251.md, supporting/eip-7688.md, supporting/eip-7732.md, supporting/eip-7928.md, supporting/eip-8282.md
Compare EIP-8025 with other assessmentsAll Hegotá 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 · Checklist revision 2 only
    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 · Checklist revision 2 only
    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 · Checklist revision 2 only
    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 · Checklist revision 2 only
    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 · Checklist revision 2 only
    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.