Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8094: eth/vhash - Blob-Aware Mempool

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
LLM Completescore 20
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. Execution-layer assessment of the draft EIP-8094 snapshot. The proposal changes devp2p eth blob-transaction mempool propagation by sending type-3 transactions without sidecars and adding vhash-addressed blob request and response messages; it explicitly makes no EVM consensus or hard-fork change.

20MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 6 criteria affected
Plausible range
15–22 (Medium)
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. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  2. Performance risks3
  3. Edge/boundary conditions3
  4. Cross-EIP interactions3

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 draft leaves message codes, final blob response encoding, partial-response correlation, request and failure bounds, security/resource controls, protocol version designation, and order-dependent integration with EIP-8070 unresolved. These are material to interoperable networking tests but do not alter the many zero-scored EVM and consensus anchors.

Plausible total

15–22
recorded score 20 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (6)
  • Which devp2p message codes and eth protocol version identify GetPooledBlobs and PooledBlobs?
  • Is the response payload a list of full blobs, a compact proof-carrying representation, or another versioned form?
  • How are omitted items, duplicate vhashes, empty requests, and partial responses correlated and handled?
  • What request-size, resource-accounting, timeout, retry, and peer-penalty rules apply?
  • How does the forwarding gate account for blobs already held locally versus blobs returned by a peer?
  • What exact combined behavior applies with EIP-8070 for each order of introduction?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The phrase requiring response order while allowing omissions and omitting identifiers does not fully specify request-to-response correlation for every constructible list.
  • The normative full-blob response is followed by optional, materially different encoding alternatives without selecting one.
  • A new protocol version is required for compatibility, but its version number and the new message codes are not assigned.
  • The Security Considerations section is empty despite adding a remotely triggerable blob-pool request path.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8094 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3New wire-interface encodings are introduced and existing transaction-message payload carriage changes; the rubric assigns 3 whenever an interface-level encoding change is introduced.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is below 4.

  • eip.md · Specification / GetPooledBlobs A new request interface is encoded as a request ID and list of 32-byte vhashes.
  • eip.md · Specification / PooledBlobs A new response interface is encoded as a request ID and list of blobs, with optional alternative payload layouts still under consideration.
  • eip.md · Specification / Transactions and PooledTransactions changes Existing type-3 transaction delivery in two eth messages is changed to omit sidecars.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The final response payload layout and message codes are unresolved, but every stated alternative still constitutes an interface encoding change.
Performance risksUnder-specified3Performance depends on interacting peer, mempool, replacement, cache-availability, validation, latency, and bandwidth behavior, so it cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation and materially changes existing blob propagation performance.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is below 4.

  • eip.md · Motivation Replacement transactions currently redistribute full blob content during fee volatility and network overload, amplifying traffic at the worst time.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Implementation options / Option 3 (selected) Separate blob retrieval can add a round trip per hop, while pushing sidecar-free transactions and reusing known blobs is intended to offset latency and bandwidth.
  • eip.md · Specification / PooledBlobs An optional compact blob representation is discussed specifically as a bandwidth and reconstruction-CPU tradeoff.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Request sizing, cache retention, final blob encoding, and peer scheduling are unspecified, preventing a precise benchmark matrix.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified3Multiple boundary-prone mechanisms interact: partial ordered responses, absent blobs, local blob reuse, hash correspondence, complete-set validation, and forwarding gates. Testing omission subsets against availability and validation outcomes creates an elevated case count.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is below 4.

  • eip.md · Specification / PooledBlobs Responses must preserve request order but may skip unavailable blobs, omit vhashes, and may optionally add a bitmap or vhash list.
  • eip.md · Specification / Other spec changes Forwarding is prohibited until all blobs have been received and validated.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Implementation options / Option 3 (selected) A receiver conditionally requests blobs after a sidecar-free transaction and may already possess reusable blob content from a replacement.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: Request bounds, duplicate-vhash behavior, response correlation, and failure handling are not specified, so the exact case matrix is unresolved.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified3The proposal has strong interactions with four identified EIPs: it depends on 7642, changes 4844 propagation behavior, combines with 8077, and leaves order-dependent 8070 integration unresolved. Coordinated cross-EIP wire and propagation testing is required, but four interactions do not trigger the rubric's additional point for three EIPs beyond the first three.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is below 4.

  • eip.md · Front matter / requires EIP-8094 declares EIP-7642 as a requirement.
  • supporting/eip-7642.md · Specification and Backwards Compatibility EIP-7642 defines eth/69 message encodings and its version rollout, which is the protocol baseline EIP-8094 modifies.
  • eip.md · Specification / Other spec changes The proposal explicitly replaces a blob-transaction propagation rule attributed to EIP-4844.
  • eip.md · Relation to other EIPs in draft state The proposal can combine with EIP-8077 and interacts with EIP-8070 in an order-dependent way left for later.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The unresolved 8070 combination leaves the final coordinated test surface uncertain, but all four interactions are explicit in the package.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7642, EIP-4844, EIP-8077, EIP-8070
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2Existing blob-mempool message and propagation tests need substantive reworking across several established paths, but the affected tests remain confined to the contrived category of type-3 peer propagation.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is below 4.

  • eip.md · Specification / Transactions (0x02) changes Type-3 transactions are now to be sent without their sidecar.
  • eip.md · Specification / PooledTransactions (0x0a) changes Type-3 pooled transactions are likewise to be sent without their sidecar.
  • eip.md · Specification / Other spec changes The pre-existing blob propagation rule is replaced with sidecar-free sending, separate blob retrieval, and validation-gated forwarding.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The package contains no permitted test inventory, so the exact size of the affected subset cannot be counted.
Security risksUnder-specified2The new peer-request path and split transaction/blob lifecycle interact with a limited set of existing components—p2p handling, the transaction/blob pool, and blob verification—and warrant targeted adversarial review and fuzzing.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is below 4.

  • eip.md · Specification / GetPooledBlobs and PooledBlobs Peers can request transaction-pool blobs by vhash, and receivers must verify that returned blob hashes match requested vhashes.
  • eip.md · Specification / Other spec changes Nodes are forbidden to forward a blob transaction until all blobs are received and validated.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations The section is empty and supplies no threat model or mitigations beyond the normative validation gate.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Request limits, malformed or duplicate requests, partial-response failure handling, resource accounting, and peer penalties are unspecified, so the risk could be higher or lower within the rubric.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Multiple localized wire-protocol details must be agreed across clients before deterministic interoperability tests can be baselined; they do not make a previously unobservable EVM behavior consensus-critical.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is below 4.

  • eip.md · Specification / GetPooledBlobs and PooledBlobs Both message codes remain TODO, while the blob payload format and response-correlation metadata are explicitly optional design choices.
  • eip.md · Specification / PooledBlobs A response may skip unavailable blobs while preserving order and omitting vhashes, without fully defining how all request and response cases are correlated.
  • eip.md · Relation to other EIPs in draft state Combination with sparse blobpool behavior depends on introduction order and is left for later as a TODO.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: The package has no permitted evidence about implementations, devnets, or discussion outcomes, so the assessment is limited to the visible draft text and its explicit TODOs.
New invariant on pre-existing tests1A narrow class of pre-existing blob propagation tests gains an assertion that forwarding is withheld until complete blob receipt and validation; this is not a fork-wide invariant.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is below 4.

  • eip.md · Specification / Other spec changes Nodes must not forward blob transactions before receiving and validating all blobs.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Some affected tests may instead be reworked directly, making the boundary between this anchor and the preceding anchor framework-dependent.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified1Networking test support needs at least minor extension to represent and exchange the two messages and exercise partial responses, but the EIP does not establish a new reusable expectation or modifier abstraction.

Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is below 4.

  • eip.md · Specification / GetPooledBlobs and PooledBlobs Two new request/response message schemas are introduced, including ordered responses that may omit unavailable items.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: No test-framework description is permitted in the package, and the unresolved response format could make the required extension either trivial or more specialized.
Show 19 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is introduced.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal explicitly does not change EVM consensus rules.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.
  • eip.md · Specification The proposal's normative behavior is limited to peer messages and forwarding.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The EIP states that it does not change EVM consensus rules and does not require a hard fork.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
Modified precompiles0No precompile logic or gas accounting is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification The specified changes concern type-3 transaction sidecar carriage and new eth peer messages.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
Added system contracts0No system contract is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification The proposal specifies only peer-to-peer mempool messages and propagation behavior.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
Modified system contracts0No existing system contract code, state, or behavior is directly or indirectly modified.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The EIP states that it changes only the eth protocol and does not change EVM consensus rules.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
EVM Gas rule changes0The specified changes are confined to eth wire-protocol transaction and blob propagation; no EVM gas accounting rule is changed.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal states that it does not change EVM consensus rules and does not require a hard fork.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode state access or gas-charge ordering is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification changes Transactions and PooledTransactions carriage and adds two blob-pool messages, without specifying opcode execution behavior.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
Blob gas accounting changes0Although the proposal concerns blobs, it changes their mempool transport rather than blob gas accounting.
  • eip.md · Specification / GetPooledBlobs and PooledBlobs Blobs are addressed and transported by vhash through new peer messages; no blob-gas rule is specified.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The EIP expressly states that it does not change EVM consensus rules.
Uncertainty: The unresolved blob wire format does not propose a blob-gas change.
State gas accounting changes0No state-writing cost, state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill rule is introduced or modified.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal states that it does not change EVM consensus rules and does not require a hard fork.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
New EVM gas refund0No EVM gas-refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification All normative changes concern eth messages and blob-transaction forwarding.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
New transaction types0No new transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification / Transactions (0x02) changes The proposal changes how the already-existing type-3 transaction is sent.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0The validation requirement gates peer forwarding but does not change transaction validity rules or intrinsic gas calculation, which are the scope of this anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification / Other spec changes Nodes must validate all separately received blobs before forwarding the blob transaction.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The EIP expressly does not change EVM consensus rules.
Uncertainty: Blob verification behavior matters to networking tests but is not scored here as transaction validity.
New block / header fields0No block or block-header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification The proposal introduces only transaction-pool blob request and response fields.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
Block syncing changes0No block RLP validation mechanism or block-sync behavior is modified.
  • eip.md · Abstract The proposal addresses blob content in type-3 transaction sidecars for mempool redistribution.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The change is a new eth wire-protocol version, not a consensus-rule change.
Uncertainty: The use of devp2p does not itself satisfy this anchor, which is specifically about block RLP validation requiring syncing.
New fork activation mechanism0No fork-activation block modifies state, internal variables, or similar execution-layer data.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The proposal requires a new eth protocol version, supports coexistence with older clients, and does not require a hard fork.
Uncertainty: The protocol-version rollout is not a fork-activation mechanism under this anchor.
Engine API changes0No Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification All specified interfaces are devp2p eth Transactions, PooledTransactions, GetPooledBlobs, and PooledBlobs messages.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool input, output, field, or mechanism is required by the specified networking behavior.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The change is an eth protocol version rollout and is explicitly not an EVM consensus or hard-fork change.
Uncertainty: No uncertainty material to this anchor is visible in the package.
Cryptography0The normative proposal reuses vhash checking and does not introduce or modify a cryptographic mechanism.
  • eip.md · Rationale / Should we use blob identifiers or a sidecar identifier? The proposal selects the already-established blob vhash rather than introducing a new identifier.
  • eip.md · Specification / PooledBlobs A possible proof-carrying alternative blob format is presented only as an optional unresolved note.
Uncertainty: The optional alternative format mentions commitments and proofs but is not selected or specified sufficiently to score as an introduced mechanism.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8094.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 080068faf9 · sha256 c5a94b085a47
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-8094.yaml · sha256 56a2b9b1f1b9
Supporting documents in the sealed package
supporting/eip-7642.md
Compare EIP-8094 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.