Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8077: eth/XX - announce transactions with nonce

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

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-10-07EIP-8081: CFILayers: execution
LLM Completescore 8
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: 2026-10-07 · 6dac5e7491 · EIP-8081 list: CFI

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-8077 is a Networking-category EIP. It defines a new devp2p 'eth' protocol version, eth/XX, that adds two parallel lists to the NewPooledTransactionHashes (0x08) message: each transaction's source address (B_20) and nonce (P), alongside the hash, type and size lists from eth/69. Sender-side changes are limited to the extra data. How receivers use the new fields for scheduling is left to implementations. If an announced <txhash,type,size,address,nonce> tuple does not match the transaction actually received, the announcing peer is treated as having violated the protocol. The EIP explicitly says it does not change EVM consensus rules and does not need a hard fork. It builds on the eth/69 message format from EIP-7642.

8LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
High
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 4 criteria affected
Plausible range
7–10 (Low)
Snapshot
2026-10-07 · EIP revision 6dac5e7491 (2026-10-07)
Score bands · Checklist revision 3
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  2. New test-framework primitives1
  3. Security risks1
  4. Performance risks1

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: The protocol version number is a placeholder ('eth/XX'). The overhead analysis is marked TBD. The text does not say how to handle list-length inconsistencies across the five parallel lists. The consequence of a tuple mismatch is only described as 'protocol violation'. All of these are p2p-local and not consensus-visible.

Plausible total

7–10
recorded score 8 · plausible tiers Low

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)
  • What protocol version number does eth/XX take?
  • Must announcements with unequal list lengths be rejected or treated as a protocol violation?
  • What exact penalty applies to a mismatched announcement (disconnect, deprioritize)? Does it apply when an eagerly pushed transaction contradicts an earlier announcement?
  • What is the quantified bandwidth overhead (the Overhead section says 'Details TBD')?
  • Do the fee fields discussed under Alternatives become part of the message? The current Specification does not include them.
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The Specification lists only the source and nonce additions. The fee fields discussed in Rationale/Alternatives are not specified.
  • It is not stated whether eth/XX carries over all other eth/69 message definitions unchanged.
  • 'Treated as a node that violated the protocol' leaves the enforcement action unspecified.
  • This is a Networking EIP with no hard fork. Its relevance to the Hegotá fork assessment is limited to coordinating client releases.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8077 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3An execution-client peer message schema (NewPooledTransactionHashes) gains serialized fields, a list of B_20 source addresses and a list of P nonces, under a new protocol version. This is a listed interface.
  • eip.md · NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes — "[txsource₁: B_20, ...], [txnonce₁: P, ...]" The NewPooledTransactionHashes (0x08) peer message gains two new RLP list fields.
  • supporting/eip-7642.md · Specification Defines the eth/69 protocol version and message schemas that eth/XX builds on.
Confidence: High
New test-framework primitives1Existing devp2p eth-protocol message primitives need a local extension: a new protocol version, two extra list fields, and the ability to build mismatched announcements. No new shared abstraction is needed.
  • eip.md · Specification — "(eth/XX): [txtypes: B, ..., [txsource₁: B_20, ...], [txnonce₁: P, ...]]" Testing needs p2p test tooling that can encode and decode the new eth/XX announcement variant.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "should be handled as a protocol violation" Tests need to construct announcements that deliberately do not match the fetched transaction.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No supplied evidence describes the current p2p test tooling, so this level rests on architectural need rather than known tool capabilities.
Security risksUnder-specified1The new security conditions are local to the p2p transaction-fetch handler. Tests need to check that a mismatched announcement is detected and penalized, and that untrusted metadata does not corrupt the mempool view. Consensus or other components' assumptions do not change.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "cannot be verified by the recipient until the transaction is actually fetched" The announced source and nonce are untrusted hints.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "mismatch ... should be handled as a protocol violation" Adds a new peer-violation condition: the fetched transaction must match the announced tuple.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Receivers may use untrusted nonce and source data for selective fetching. This could open targeted mempool starvation or gap-manipulation vectors, but implementation choices are left open, so no concrete cross-component invariant is established.
Performance risksUnder-specified1Announcement bandwidth increases, and the per-entry message size and encoding cost should be measured. Component or network-level bandwidth measurement is enough. No execution-workload coupling is introduced.
  • eip.md · Overhead — "adds a significant overhead to announcements ... Details TBD" Each announcement entry grows by about 20 bytes plus a variable-size nonce. The overhead analysis has not been done yet.
  • eip.md · Changes to message handling — "MAY revisit the condition ... to select between eager push and announcement" The push-versus-announce threshold may need retuning because announcements are larger.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The overhead analysis is marked TBD. P2p bandwidth is arguably outside EL execution performance, so 0 is also defensible.
Cross-EIP interactions1The only interaction is with EIP-7642's eth/69. Tests need local compatibility checks: version negotiation, eth/69 peers still receiving 3-list announcements, and eth/XX peers receiving 5-list announcements, plus the other eth/69 messages carrying over unchanged. No coordinated multi-EIP scenarios are required.
  • eip.md · Preamble — "requires: 7642"; Specification — "(eth/69): [txtypes: B, ...]" eth/XX extends the eth/69 announcement format.
  • supporting/eip-7642.md · Backwards Compatibility — "Supporting multiple versions of a wire protocol is possible" eth/69 defines the version that peers fall back to.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The text does not say whether eth/XX inherits every eth/69 message change (Status, Receipts, BlockRangeUpdate) unchanged.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7642
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1There are localized p2p omissions: the version number, the handling of inconsistent list lengths, and the exact penalty for a mismatch. Surrounding eth-protocol conventions point to one intended outcome. Consensus-visible behavior is not affected.
  • eip.md · Specification — "(eth/XX)" The protocol version number is not yet assigned.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "can be treated as a node that violated the protocol" The consequence of a mismatch, such as disconnecting the peer, is implied rather than stated.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Whether clients must reject announcements whose list lengths are inconsistent is not stated.
Show 22 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new instructions.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility No EVM change.
Modified opcodes0No instruction semantics change.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility No EVM change.
Added precompiles0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles are introduced.
Modified precompiles0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles are changed.
Added system contracts0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are introduced.
Modified system contracts0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are affected.
EVM Gas rule changes0This is a p2p message change only. No execution-gas charging, metering or limits change.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "does not change consensus rules of the EVM" Explicitly states no EVM consensus change, so execution-gas accounting is unchanged.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode's state access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification — NewPooledTransactionHashes message changes Only the content of a wire message changes. No instruction is affected.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas charging, pricing or limit change.
  • eip.md · Alternatives — "restrict the mechanism to blob transactions only" Blob transactions come up only as a propagation design alternative. No blob-gas rules change.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting change.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility No consensus or EVM change, so state-gas accounting is unaffected.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is mentioned or introduced.
New transaction types0No new EL transaction envelope.
  • eip.md · Specification Only transaction announcements change. No transaction envelope is added.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Mempool and p2p policy only, which this criterion excludes.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "does not change consensus rules" Consensus transaction validity is unchanged. Only mempool fetching behavior changes.
New block / header fields0No header fields added.
  • eip.md · Specification No block or header schema change.
Block syncing changes0Execution-block decoding and structural validation are unchanged.
  • eip.md · Abstract — "improves mempool propagation" The change only affects mempool gossip, which this criterion excludes.
New fork activation mechanism0No activation-specific EL state transition.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "does not require a hard fork" Rolled out through protocol version negotiation, not a fork transition.
Engine API changes0No Engine API changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only the devp2p eth message changes. The Engine API is not mentioned.
Transition-tool interface changes0The state-transition tool is not affected.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "does not require a hard fork" State-transition semantics are unchanged, so the t8n interface needs no change.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests0Baseline execution tests and eth/69 message behavior are not reworked. The new message version needs new tests of its own, but those are feature tests, not rework.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "older clients ... can keep using the previous protocol version" eth/69 stays valid alongside the new version, so existing eth/69 message behavior is unchanged.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Baseline tests need no additional assertion.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility No new header, receipt, log or state output is produced during execution.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified0No new or changed rule with a boundary-sensitive outcome affects EL execution. Mismatch detection is a binary equality check.
  • eip.md · Changes to message handling — "these are not mandated by the protocol" Receivers' scheduling logic is not mandated, so it defines no boundary rules.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations The tuple-mismatch rule is an equality check, not a boundary-sensitive threshold.
Uncertainty: Behavior for list-length inconsistencies is not specified. If clients treated it as a validation rule, it could be counted as one boundary-type check.
Cryptography0Unchanged cryptographic primitives are reused. No cryptographic rule changes.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "after the verification of the transaction hash" Uses the existing transaction hash and sender recovery unchanged.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8077.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob a1f03e910d · sha256 fdbb52add5a5
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/prospective/outputs/assessments/hegota-2026-10-08/eip-8077.yaml · sha256 8c8ee433cbce
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-7642.md
Compare EIP-8077 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 · not in checklist revision 1
    Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
    Score anchors
    0
    No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
    1
    A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
    2
    Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
    3
    The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
    • Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
    • Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
    • Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
  • Blob gas accounting changes
    New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No blob gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State gas accounting changes · not in checklist revision 1
    New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
    Score anchors
    0
    No state gas accounting changes.
    1
    An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
    2
    A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
    3
    A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
    • Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
  • New EVM gas refund
    New gas-refund mechanism
    Score anchors
    0
    No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    2
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    3
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.

  • New transaction types
    Introduces a new transaction type
    Score anchors
    0
    No new transaction types are introduced.
    3
    A new transaction type is introduced.
  • New or modified transaction validity mechanisms
    Creates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
    Score anchors
    0
    No changes are introduced to the validity rules of existing transaction types or to their intrinsic gas cost calculation.
    1
    Minor adjustments are introduced to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation, but they do not significantly affect existing tests.
    2
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation affect existing tests, but require only limited updates to test cases and no redesign of the testing infrastructure.
    3
    Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation require extensive rework or redesign of the tests or testing infrastructure.
  • New block / header fields
    Introduces new block or block header fields
    Score anchors
    0
    No new block or header fields are introduced.
    3
    A new block or header field is introduced.
  • Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
    Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
    Score anchors
    0
    No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
    3
    An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
    • "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
  • Block syncing changes
    Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    1
    A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
    3
    Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
  • New fork activation mechanism
    Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
    Score anchors
    0
    No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
    3
    Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
    • Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

  • Engine API changes
    Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
    Score anchors
    0
    No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
    1
    A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
    2
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
    3
    Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
  • Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
    Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
  • Transition-tool interface changes
    Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
    Score anchors
    0
    No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
    1
    A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    2
    Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    3
    Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
    • Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.

  • Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
    Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
    1
    Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
    2
    Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
    3
    Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
  • New invariant on pre-existing tests · not in checklist revision 1
    Tests that are **not about this EIP** must nonetheless assert something this EIP produces. Their logic does not change; they gain a new thing to check.
    Score anchors
    0
    Pre-existing tests assert nothing new.
    1
    A narrow, contrived category of pre-existing tests gains a new assertion.
    2
    A broad category gains a new assertion, applied mechanically.
    3
    Every test in the fork gains the assertion regardless of what it tests, and pre-fork vectors must be re-derived to satisfy it.
    • Paired with the row above, and easy to confuse with it. "Patterns affecting pre-existing tests" asks whether existing tests must be **reworked**; this row asks whether they must **additionally assert something new**. Score both — an EIP can be low on one and high on the other.
  • New test-framework primitives · not in checklist revision 1
    Requires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
    Score anchors
    0
    Existing test primitives suffice.
    1
    Existing primitives need minor extension.
    2
    New expectation or modifier primitives are required, reusable within this EIP's own test suite.
    3
    New framework-level primitives are required that become a permanent part of the framework and are used by other EIPs' tests.

Risk and validation

Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.

  • Security risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that could pose a security risk.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms are self-contained, can be validated in isolation, and do not alter existing invariants that could pose a security risk for any stakeholders.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms interact with a limited number of existing components, slightly altering their security assumptions and requiring a targeted security review or fuzzing.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms interact with multiple existing components, including critical ones, substantially altering their security assumptions and requiring an extensive security review and fuzzing.
  • Performance risks
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
    Score anchors
    0
    No new mechanisms are introduced that require performance validation.
    1
    The introduced mechanisms can be benchmarked in isolation and do not affect existing performance behavior.
    2
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, but they only have a limited impact on the existing performance benchmarks.
    3
    The introduced mechanisms cannot be benchmarked in isolation and have a substantial impact on existing performance benchmarks or have complex interactions with existing mechanisms.
  • Edge/boundary conditions
    Feature contains edge/boundary conditions.
    Score anchors
    0
    No discernible edge cases or boundary conditions are introduced.
    1
    A single edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanism is introduced.
    2
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced, but none of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
    3
    Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
  • Cryptography
    Introduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
    Score anchors
    0
    No cryptography mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new cryptography mechanism is introduced but it is a well known mechanism that is known to have vast resources to aid on its testing.
    2
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced that are well-known or a single but novel mechanism is introduced that is either untested or has limited resources.
    3
    Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is a novel mechanism.

Coordination

Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.

  • Cross-EIP interactions
    Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
    Score anchors
    0
    Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
    1
    The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
    2
    The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
    3
    The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
    • +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
    • This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
  • Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · not in checklist revision 1
    The EIP text does not determine the answer for cases a test can construct. Clients must agree on a previously unspecified detail before tests can be baselined. The cost here is coordination and re-baselining, not test writing.
    Score anchors
    0
    The EIP text determines the answer for every case a test could construct.
    1
    A few details are unspecified but have an obvious intended reading.
    2
    Details require client agreement before tests can be written, but they are localized.
    3
    A previously unspecified *and previously unobservable* behavior becomes consensus-critical; expect tests to be re-baselined on each round of EIP amendment.
    • Score this from the EIP's state at assessment time: whether it has client implementations, whether it has been through a devnet, and how many open questions remain on its discussion thread.