EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8115: Batch priority fees at end of block

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 16

Human Draft PRscore 10 · Checklist revision 2· ethspecs/pm #126 (draft)

LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-26 · Original snapshot · 16 Human · Checklist revision 2Draft PR · 10 CompareHuman vs LLM · same checklist revision

Evaluated on: 2026-08-26 · Spec revision: 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2 · Inclusion status at snapshot: PFI

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer assessment of the sealed Draft EIP-8115 proposal, limited to delaying and batching EIP-1559 priority-fee credits after all block transactions and before EIP-4895 withdrawals.

16MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 6 criteria affected
Plausible range: 11–17 (Low–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

Performance risks3
Edge/boundary conditions3
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
Security risks2

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 one-paragraph normative rule fixes the principal processing boundary but omits a precise accumulation algorithm, covered transaction forms, arithmetic and zero-credit semantics, and activation detail. Those gaps materially affect boundary, regression, validity, performance, security, and consensus-baselining estimates.

Plausible total

11–17
recorded score 16 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Affected criteria (6)

New or modified transaction validity mechanisms (2)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (1)
Security risks (2)
Performance risks (3)
Edge/boundary conditions (3)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (6)

Does the batch include priority-fee amounts produced by legacy and type-1 transactions normalized under EIP-1559, or only type-2 fee-market transactions?
Is each contribution exactly actual gas used multiplied by the capped priority fee per gas, including reverted executions and transaction gas refunds?
What numeric domain and overflow behavior apply to the block-wide accumulator and the final beneficiary balance addition?
What state effect is required when the total credit is zero or the fee-recipient account does not otherwise exist?
What exact validity handling is required when a fee-recipient transaction would have been solvent only after an earlier incremental credit?
How and at what fork boundary is the new processing rule activated?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The Abstract says fee-market transactions, while the normative sentence says EIP-1559 priority fees; the included existing transaction forms are not enumerated.
Summed up does not specify accumulator width, overflow handling, or whether zero-valued credit operations affect account state.
The required position before EIP-4895 withdrawals is explicit, but no executable state-transition pseudocode defines all fee contribution and failure cases.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8115 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Performance risksUnder-specified	3	The mechanism's purpose is to remove a block-wide shared balance write from every transaction. Its parallel-execution effect cannot be validated in isolation from block workloads and is intended to substantially change existing execution performance behavior, warranting broad workload benchmarking.	eip.md · Motivation, items 1 and 3 Per-transaction writes to the fee-recipient balance limit parallelization and create hundreds of micropayments. eip.md · Rationale Batched crediting is intended to improve parallel transaction execution. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package gives no quantitative target, workload model, or benchmark result, so the size and consistency of the performance effect remain uncertain.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	3	Testing must cover accumulation and the new end-of-transactions boundary across transaction count/order, zero and nonzero effective tips, actual gas use/refund outcomes, the fee recipient's role and balance threshold, and the specified withdrawal boundary. These interacting dimensions create multiple boundary-prone behaviors, including a solvency matrix requiring an elevated case count.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing Fees are accumulated across all transactions and credited at the exact boundary after transactions but before withdrawals. supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification > reference implementation, normalize_transaction and World.validate_block transaction loop Legacy, type-1, and type-2 transactions normalize to fee values; the credited amount depends on the priority-fee cap and actual gas used after refund. eip.md · Rationale and Backwards Compatibility Fee-recipient solvency during the block changes because incremental credits can no longer make its later transaction eligible. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The exact matrix is uncertain because the draft does not define the included transaction forms, accumulator arithmetic, or zero-credit account behavior.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified	2	Delaying credits changes the validity outcome for a later transaction sent by the fee recipient when its pre-block balance is insufficient but earlier priority fees previously made it solvent. This affects existing cases but is localized and needs limited vector updates rather than test-infrastructure redesign.	eip.md · Rationale A transaction can no longer start underfunded and become eligible after incremental priority-fee credits. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The fee recipient can spend the fees only in the next block, changing block-builder liquidity requirements. supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification > reference implementation, World.validate_block transaction loop Transaction processing checks the signer's balance before executing and currently credits the block author after each transaction. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The draft states the intended solvency effect but does not give exact validation pseudocode or define the scope across existing transaction forms.
Security risksUnder-specified	2	Incorrect accumulation, omission, duplication, or ordering would alter ETH balances or transaction solvency. The change is limited to fee settlement, transaction balance checks, and the withdrawal boundary, so targeted review and fuzzing are appropriate rather than an extensive multi-component security program.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing Clients must compute a block-wide fee sum and apply exactly one balance credit at a consensus-critical point before withdrawals. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The timing change removes same-block spendability and changes liquidity requirements for block builders and MEV use cases. eip.md · Security Considerations The proposal asserts that there is no security impact but supplies no supporting analysis. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The EIP's security section is conclusory, and missing arithmetic and transaction-scope details prevent high confidence.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	The proposal directly modifies 1559 fee processing and requires coordinated ordering tests with 4895 withdrawals. These two dependencies require coordinated consideration but remain limited to balance-update sequencing, matching score 2.	eip.md · Front matter, requires; Specification > Priority fee processing EIP-8115 requires EIPs 1559 and 4895, modifies EIP-1559 priority-fee settlement, and fixes the batch credit before EIP-4895 withdrawals. supporting/eip-4895.md · Specification > State transition Withdrawals are processed after user-level transactions as unconditional balance increases. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The Motivation mentions unnumbered ETH balance-log proposals, but the package does not identify a normative dependency or an EIP number for them. Interacting EIPs: EIP-1559, EIP-4895
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Clients need localized agreement on which existing transactions contribute, the exact accumulated amount and arithmetic, and zero-credit/account-state behavior before boundary vectors can be baselined. The newly changed intermediate fee-recipient balance was already observable to later transactions, so the score-3 condition for previously unobservable behavior is not met.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification > Priority fee processing The text says EIP-1559 priority fees from fee-market transactions are summed but gives no algorithm, numeric domain, or explicit enumeration of covered transaction forms. supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification > reference implementation, normalize_transaction and World.validate_block transaction loop The supporting EIP normalizes legacy, type-1, and type-2 transactions to priority-fee fields and calculates the per-transaction credit from actual gas used. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Prohibited implementation, devnet, and discussion evidence is unavailable by contract; this score reflects only the material gaps in the sealed Draft text.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	The proposal updates an existing gas-linked fee-accounting mechanism's settlement timing. It introduces no new gas meter and does not change gas consumed, effective gas price, or the sender's gas charge, so the existing-mechanism score of 1 applies.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing Per-transaction EIP-1559 priority-fee credits are replaced by one accumulated credit after transaction processing. supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification > reference implementation, World.validate_block transaction loop The existing mechanism credits block.author with gas_used multiplied by priority_fee_per_gas after each transaction. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The EIP gives no pseudocode, but the changed existing credit point is explicit and no gas-cost change is specified.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	1	Existing multi-transaction tests in which the fee recipient spends fees credited by an earlier transaction must be reworked. Most tests retain the same end-of-block aggregate credit, making the affected set a narrow subset rather than a broad category.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The fee recipient can no longer spend priority fees in the same block, and block-builder infrastructure and MEV liquidity may need updates. eip.md · Rationale A transaction can no longer become eligible after incremental priority-fee credits. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package provides no test inventory, and ambiguity about which fee-bearing transaction forms are batched makes the exact affected subset uncertain.

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The normative change is performed by block processing rather than an EVM instruction. Uncertainty: No opcode allocation or semantics appear in the proposal.
Modified opcodes	No pre-existing opcode's non-gas behavior is modified or deprecated.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The proposal delays recipient credit without changing any instruction result. supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification, GASPRICE requirement EIP-1559 defines GASPRICE as effective_gas_price; EIP-8115 does not alter that requirement. Uncertainty: The draft does not restate GASPRICE, but its narrowly scoped rule does not change the transaction's effective gas price.
Added precompiles	No precompile is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The proposal specifies only protocol-level fee accumulation and crediting. Uncertainty: No precompile address, input, output, or gas rule appears in the proposal.
Modified precompiles	No existing precompile logic or gas schedule is modified.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The normative change does not refer to precompile execution or charging. Uncertainty: No precompile interaction appears in the sealed sources.
Added system contracts	No system contract is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The fee credit is a protocol balance update and no contract address or code is defined. Uncertainty: No system-contract mechanism appears in the proposal.
Modified system contracts	No existing system-contract code, state, or system-contract-specific behavior is directly or indirectly modified by the specified rule.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The change targets priority-fee settlement to the block fee recipient and names no system contract. Uncertainty: The sealed sources identify no system contract interaction.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	The changed balance write occurs at transaction/block processing boundaries, not inside any opcode, and no opcode gas charge is reordered relative to an opcode state access.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The credit is moved from transaction completion to a block-level point after all transactions. Uncertainty: The draft does not provide execution pseudocode, but its specified boundary is outside opcode execution.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob gas mechanism or blob fee accounting is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The sole normative change concerns EIP-1559 priority-fee credit timing. Uncertainty: No blob-related behavior appears in the sealed proposal.
State gas accounting changes	A balance update is reordered, but the rubric's state-gas mechanisms for charging state writes are not changed.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The proposal changes when a balance credit is applied, without defining a state-gas cost, budget, reservoir, or spill rule. Uncertainty: The proposal is silent on state gas because it specifies no state-gas accounting change.
New EVM gas refund	No refund is added or modified; the proposal batches the recipient's fee credit after transaction-level gas use and refunds have been determined.	supporting/eip-1559.md · Specification > reference implementation, World.validate_block transaction loop Unused-gas refunds are paid to the signer before the existing priority-fee credit to the block author. eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing Only the priority-fee credit timing is changed. Uncertainty: The EIP does not restate refund behavior, so the assessment treats the narrowly stated credit-timing change as exhaustive.
New transaction types	No new transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Abstract and Specification > Priority fee processing The EIP changes processing of priority fees from existing fee-market transactions and defines no transaction envelope. Uncertainty: Which existing fee-bearing transaction forms are covered is ambiguous, but none is newly created.
New block / header fields	No new block-body or block-header field is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The accumulator and final balance credit are processing behavior; no block or header field is defined. Uncertainty: No block schema change appears in the proposal.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No RLP, SSZ, transaction, block, or interface-level encoding is changed.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The proposal adds an execution-order rule and no transaction, block, or interface encoding. Uncertainty: The normative section defines no serialized object or field.
Block syncing changes	No new block RLP validation mechanism requiring client syncing is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The proposal changes state-processing order and defines no block RLP field or validation rule. Uncertainty: The normative section contains no serialization change.
New fork activation mechanism	Applying the new rule does not require a state modification or irregular internal-variable update at the activation block; a per-block accumulator would be initialization, not modification of existing state.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The EIP specifies a changed processing rule but no one-time state migration or existing internal-variable modification at activation. Uncertainty: The Draft contains no explicit activation clause, but it also prescribes no activation-block transition that meets this anchor.
Engine API changes	The proposal introduces neither an Engine API field nor a new communication mechanism or endpoint.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing All data used by the rule already belongs to transaction, fee-recipient, and withdrawal processing; no Engine API directive or field is specified. Uncertainty: No Engine API surface appears in the sealed proposal.
Transition-tool interface changes	The batching accumulator is internal to block processing; the sealed proposal requires no transition-tool interface field or mechanism.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The rule uses the existing block transactions, fee recipient, priority fees, and withdrawals ordering, with no new input or output field. Uncertainty: No transition-tool design is included, but nothing in the normative rule requires additional external data.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Tests specifically exercising batching need balance assertions, but unrelated pre-existing tests do not gain a new produced field or invariant to assert in addition to their existing post-state checks.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The proposal changes an internal state-transition ordering and adds no new block output or commitment. Uncertainty: The package does not describe the test harness; this score distinguishes changed expected state in the narrow affected tests from a new assertion required in every unrelated test.
New test-framework primitives	Multi-transaction blocks and post-state balance checks can express the specified behavior; no new expectation type, modifier, or reusable framework abstraction is required by the text.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The behavior is a balance transition over an ordered list of ordinary block transactions followed by withdrawals. Uncertainty: The package contains no test-framework inventory, so confidence is limited to what the proposal itself demands.
Cryptography	No cryptographic primitive, algorithm, proof, signature rule, or commitment is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification > Priority fee processing The normative rule only sums and credits priority fees at a different processing point. Uncertainty: No cryptography-related behavior appears in the sealed proposal.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8115.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob d4ea93f317 · sha256 55ab16f6b3f9
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-8115.yaml · sha256 c6b738cfaf15
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-1559.md, supporting/eip-4895.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

10LowLow

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v2
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2026-08-24
Source: open ethspecs/pm pull request #126 (draft)

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 Human total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

Cross-EIP interactions2
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms1
Transition-tool interface changes1

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8115 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Cross-EIP interactions	2	Modifies EIP-7928 BAL content (coordinated re-derivation of fee-recipient vectors) and interacts with EIP-4895 (credit ordering and merge), EIP-7708 (fee flows stay log-silent — a stated motivation), EIP-8037 (fee settlement path), and EIP-7799 (refers to 8115 parts). Limited in scope and not complex; five interacting EIPs, no +1 increment.	—
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	Two consensus-critical details are unspecified and need client agreement before fixtures can be baselined, both localized: the credit's EIP-7928 BAL representation (index; merge with a same-account withdrawal) and zero-fee touch semantics (EIP-161 destruction of an empty recipient; BAL accessed-listing).	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	1	The balance-at-execution rule is textually unchanged, but block validity flips for a fee recipient spending fees accrued earlier in the same block; no pre-existing validity tests flipped in the full fill.	—
Transition-tool interface changes	1	No wire fields, but both t8n modes need the end-of-block settlement step, and state-test mode needs a shared convention (credit after the single transaction) for fixtures to match across fillers.	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	Measured blast radius: 14 executions / 6 functions out of 65,709 — EIP-7928 fee-recipient balance-change pins (index and withdrawal-merge) plus one mid-block coinbase read; all updated mechanically behind one fork predicate, none parked.	—
New test-framework primitives	1	One identity-default fork predicate (`batched_priority_fees`) keeps fee-recipient expectations fork-correct; minor extension.	—
Security risks	1	Self-contained fee-flow change; alters builder/MEV liquidity assumptions (fees spendable only in the next block) — application-layer and testable in isolation.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	1	One edge-prone surface: zero-fee and empty-block touch semantics (EIP-161 destruction of an empty fee recipient, BAL accessed-listing) plus fee-recipient-as-sender solvency boundaries; single mechanism, moderate case count.	—

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified opcodes	`BALANCE`/`SELFBALANCE` semantics unchanged; only the state they observe mid-block differs.	—
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	No charge, refund, or schedule changes: `gas_used`, receipts, and sender debits are byte-identical; only the credit's timing moves. Measured: zero gas-value flips in a full fill.	—
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No opcode's internal access or charge order moves; the credit relocates at the block level, outside opcode execution.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
State gas accounting changes	The fee credit is not state-gas charged; rates, reservoir, and spill untouched.	—
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	—
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	—
New block / header fields	No rationale recorded.	—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No rationale recorded.	—
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New fork activation mechanism	No rationale recorded.	—
Engine API changes	State-root/BAL-visible only; no payload shape change.	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	No new assertion lands on unrelated tests; the credit folds into BAL entries those tests already assert.	—
Performance risks	Removes per-transaction coinbase writes — the EIP's stated purpose; nothing new to benchmark.	—
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	—

Assessment provenance

Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Open draft pull request #126: Add EIP-8115 complexity assessment · checklist at 39f6dc729d · updated 2026-08-24
blob 2613a7f405 · sha256 5f31c7f4ff29
Research record: research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-8115.yaml · sha256 e43f51eb5313

Both assessments applied Checklist revision 2 (28 criteria) to EIP-8115 in Hegotá. Δ is LLM minus Human.

Using the latest scored LLM evaluation for this checklist: 2026-08-26 · spec 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2. The Human and LLM assessments may use different spec revisions.

LLM16Medium

Human10Low

Δ total+6Tiers differ: Medium vs Low

Criteria21/28agree exactly · 5 differ by 1 · 2 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Performance risks (+3), Edge/boundary conditions (+2), EVM Gas rule changes (+1), Transition-tool interface changes (−1), New test-framework primitives (−1)

Show differences only (7 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Performance risks	3	0	+3	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The mechanism's purpose is to remove a block-wide shared balance write from every transaction. Its parallel-execution effect cannot be validated in isolation from block workloads and is intended to substantially change existing execution performance behavior, warranting broad workload benchmarking. Human Removes per-transaction coinbase writes — the EIP's stated purpose; nothing new to benchmark.
Edge/boundary conditions	3	1	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Testing must cover accumulation and the new end-of-transactions boundary across transaction count/order, zero and nonzero effective tips, actual gas use/refund outcomes, the fee recipient's role and balance threshold, and the specified withdrawal boundary. These interacting dimensions create multiple boundary-prone behaviors, including a solvency matrix requiring an elevated case count. Human One edge-prone surface: zero-fee and empty-block touch semantics (EIP-161 destruction of an empty fee recipient, BAL accessed-listing) plus fee-recipient-as-sender solvency boundaries; single mechanism, moderate case count.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The proposal updates an existing gas-linked fee-accounting mechanism's settlement timing. It introduces no new gas meter and does not change gas consumed, effective gas price, or the sender's gas charge, so the existing-mechanism score of 1 applies. Human No charge, refund, or schedule changes: `gas_used`, receipts, and sender debits are byte-identical; only the credit's timing moves. Measured: zero gas-value flips in a full fill.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Delaying credits changes the validity outcome for a later transaction sent by the fee recipient when its pre-block balance is insufficient but earlier priority fees previously made it solvent. This affects existing cases but is localized and needs limited vector updates rather than test-infrastructure redesign. Human The balance-at-execution rule is textually unchanged, but block validity flips for a fee recipient spending fees accrued earlier in the same block; no pre-existing validity tests flipped in the full fill.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The batching accumulator is internal to block processing; the sealed proposal requires no transition-tool interface field or mechanism. Human No wire fields, but both t8n modes need the end-of-block settlement step, and state-test mode needs a shared convention (credit after the single transaction) for fixtures to match across fillers.
New test-framework primitives	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Multi-transaction blocks and post-state balance checks can express the specified behavior; no new expectation type, modifier, or reusable framework abstraction is required by the text. Human One identity-default fork predicate (`batched_priority_fees`) keeps fee-recipient expectations fork-correct; minor extension.
Security risks	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Incorrect accumulation, omission, duplication, or ordering would alter ETH balances or transaction solvency. The change is limited to fee settlement, transaction balance checks, and the withdrawal boundary, so targeted review and fuzzing are appropriate rather than an extensive multi-component security program. Human Self-contained fee-flow change; alters builder/MEV liquidity assumptions (fees spendable only in the next block) — application-layer and testable in isolation.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No opcode is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No pre-existing opcode's non-gas behavior is modified or deprecated. Human `BALANCE`/`SELFBALANCE` semantics unchanged; only the state they observe mid-block differs.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No existing precompile logic or gas schedule is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No existing system-contract code, state, or system-contract-specific behavior is directly or indirectly modified by the specified rule. Human No rationale recorded.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The changed balance write occurs at transaction/block processing boundaries, not inside any opcode, and no opcode gas charge is reordered relative to an opcode state access. Human No opcode's internal access or charge order moves; the credit relocates at the block level, outside opcode execution.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob gas mechanism or blob fee accounting is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM A balance update is reordered, but the rubric's state-gas mechanisms for charging state writes are not changed. Human The fee credit is not state-gas charged; rates, reservoir, and spill untouched.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No refund is added or modified; the proposal batches the recipient's fee credit after transaction-level gas use and refunds have been determined. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new transaction type is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new block-body or block-header field is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No RLP, SSZ, transaction, block, or interface-level encoding is changed. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new block RLP validation mechanism requiring client syncing is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Applying the new rule does not require a state modification or irregular internal-variable update at the activation block; a per-block accumulator would be initialization, not modification of existing state. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal introduces neither an Engine API field nor a new communication mechanism or endpoint. Human State-root/BAL-visible only; no payload shape change.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Existing multi-transaction tests in which the fee recipient spends fees credited by an earlier transaction must be reworked. Most tests retain the same end-of-block aggregate credit, making the affected set a narrow subset rather than a broad category. Human Measured blast radius: 14 executions / 6 functions out of 65,709 — EIP-7928 fee-recipient balance-change pins (index and withdrawal-merge) plus one mid-block coinbase read; all updated mechanically behind one fork predicate, none parked.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Tests specifically exercising batching need balance assertions, but unrelated pre-existing tests do not gain a new produced field or invariant to assert in addition to their existing post-state checks. Human No new assertion lands on unrelated tests; the credit folds into BAL entries those tests already assert.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic primitive, algorithm, proof, signature rule, or commitment is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal directly modifies 1559 fee processing and requires coordinated ordering tests with 4895 withdrawals. These two dependencies require coordinated consideration but remain limited to balance-update sequencing, matching score 2. Human Modifies EIP-7928 BAL content (coordinated re-derivation of fee-recipient vectors) and interacts with EIP-4895 (credit ordering and merge), EIP-7708 (fee flows stay log-silent — a stated motivation), EIP-8037 (fee settlement path), and EIP-7799 (refers to 8115 parts). Limited in scope and not complex; five interacting EIPs, no +1 increment.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Clients need localized agreement on which existing transactions contribute, the exact accumulated amount and arithmetic, and zero-credit/account-state behavior before boundary vectors can be baselined. The newly changed intermediate fee-recipient balance was already observable to later transactions, so the score-3 condition for previously unobservable behavior is not met. Human Two consensus-critical details are unspecified and need client agreement before fixtures can be baselined, both localized: the credit's EIP-7928 BAL representation (index; merge with a same-account withdrawal) and zero-fee touch semantics (EIP-161 destruction of an empty recipient; BAL accessed-listing).

Compare EIP-8115 with other assessments All 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.

OP+
Added opcodes
Introduces new opcodes
Score anchors
0
No new opcodes are introduced.
1
A new simple opcode is introduced (no data portion, no complex stack mechanics, and a constant gas cost).
2
Multiple new simple opcodes are introduced, or a single new complex opcode is introduced (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
3
Multiple new opcodes are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
- Cryptography opcodes are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" section for a separate assessment.
Modified opcodes
Modifies pre-existing opcodes
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing opcode modifications are introduced.
3
At least one pre-existing opcode's behavior is modified (not including gas changes) or a pre-existing opcode is deprecated.
PC+
Added precompiles
Introduces new precompiles
Score anchors
0
No new precompiles are introduced.
1
A new simple precompile is introduced (constant input length, constant gas cost).
2
Multiple new simple precompiles are introduced, or a single new complex precompile is introduced (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
3
Multiple new precompiles are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
- Cryptography precompiles are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" for a separate assessment.
Modified precompiles
Modifies pre-existing precompiles logic or gas-accounting
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing precompiles are modified.
1
At least one pre-existing precompile has its gas schedule modified.
2
Multiple pre-existing precompiles have their gas schedule modified, or a single pre-existing precompile has its behavior modified.
3
The behavior of multiple pre-existing precompiles, or a single complex pre-existing precompile modified.
Added system contracts
Introduces new system contract, stateful or not
Score anchors
0
No new system contracts are introduced.
1
A new system contract is introduced that is not stateful nor does it trigger a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
2
Multiple new system contracts are introduced or a single new system contract that is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
3
Multiple new system contracts are introduced and at least one of them is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
Modified system contracts
Modifies pre-existing system contracts
Score anchors
0
No modifications to pre-existing system contracts are introduced, directly or indirectly.
1
Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has minor indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
2
Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has major indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
3
At least one pre-existing system contract code or state is modified, which would involve irregular state transition or a similarly complex transition methodology.

Gas and accounting

Execution, blob, and state gas rules, refunds, and where charges happen inside opcodes.

EVM Gas rule changes
New EVM gas accounting rules
Score anchors
0
No gas accounting changes.
1
Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated.
2
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
3
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
ORD
State-access ordering within opcode execution · 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.
SGAS
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.
ENC
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
Score anchors
0
No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
3
An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
- "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
Block syncing changes
Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
Score anchors
0
No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
1
A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
2
Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
3
Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
ACT
New fork activation mechanism
Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
Score anchors
0
No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
3
Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
- Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

Engine API changes
Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
Score anchors
0
No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
1
A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
2
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
3
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
T8N
Transition-tool interface changes
Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
Score anchors
0
No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
1
A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
2
Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
3
Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
- Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

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

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
1
Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
2
Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
3
Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
INV
New invariant on pre-existing tests · 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.

XEIP
Cross-EIP interactions
Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
Score anchors
0
Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
1
The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
2
The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
3
The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
- +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
- This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
UNSP
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · 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.