Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8116: Replace cumulative receipt fields

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 10
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. Draft execution-layer proposal in the sealed Hegota snapshot that changes every post-activation on-chain receipt from cumulativeGasUsed semantics to per-transaction gasUsed semantics and changes JSON-RPC logIndex from block-relative to receipt-relative.

10LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range
9–14 (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

  1. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3
  2. Performance risks2
  3. Edge/boundary conditions2
  4. Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2

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 proposal clearly changes receipt gas and RPC log-index semantics, but it does not normatively define the resulting receipt schema/serialization, transition-tool representation, or the complete affected JSON-RPC surface. This is treated as one representation-and-interface gap rather than repeated across unrelated anchors.

Plausible total

9–14
recorded score 10 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • Is the existing cumulativeGasUsed receipt position and integer encoding retained with new semantics, or is a new receipt field/schema introduced?
  • Must a transition tool rename, replace, or add any receipt output field, and what is its fork-aware interface behavior?
  • Which JSON-RPC methods and gas fields, beyond logs.logIndex, retain old names or acquire changed semantics?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • The singular normative on-chain rule does not spell out how the title's plural "receipt fields" maps to a serialized receipt schema.
  • The backward-compatibility discussion names both gasUsed and cumulativeGasUsed without normatively specifying their post-activation JSON-RPC exposure.
  • The logIndex rule says "within logs" but does not enumerate the RPC responses to which the new receipt-relative index applies.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8116 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3Every post-activation receipt changes its consensus value, so the broad set of existing vectors that commits to or verifies receipts must be re-derived rather than only a contrived corner category.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction All receipts emitted after activation must contain individual transaction gasUsed rather than cumulativeGasUsed.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Applications using verified gasUsed or cumulativeGasUsed values must adapt to the new on-chain semantics.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP has no testing section or inventory of the existing corpus, so the exact number and categories of affected vectors are not package-evidenced.
Performance risks2The intended benefit depends on block-level receipt verification and parallel construction behavior, so it is not fully measurable as an isolated scalar operation, while the affected surface remains limited to receipt production and consumption.
  • eip.md · Motivation Cumulative receipt fields are identified as inefficient for individual gas verification and as limiting parallelism because receipt contents are stateful across transactions.
  • eip.md · Rationale Stateful cumulative gas and log-index components are replaced with per-transaction equivalents.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP supplies no performance targets, workload model, or benchmark plan, so the magnitude of the limited impact is not quantified.
Edge/boundary conditions2Two boundary-prone mechanisms require coverage: gas values across first and later receipts and log indices resetting across receipts, including receipts with differing log counts; neither demands an elevated combinatorial case set on the package evidence.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction Receipt gas changes from a block-running sum to an individual transaction value at activation.
  • eip.md · Specification > JSON-RPC API Each logIndex changes from a block-level sequence to its position within the individual receipt.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Exact boundary vectors are not enumerated, and the precise RPC method scope is not specified.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2Clients need localized agreement on the exact receipt representation and RPC surface before consensus and API vectors can be baselined; the change does not make a previously unobservable execution behavior consensus-critical, so score 3 does not apply.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction The draft states the new gas semantics but does not define the precise receipt field/schema, serialization treatment, or transition-interface representation.
  • eip.md · Specification > JSON-RPC API The RPC rule changes logIndex within logs but does not enumerate affected methods or fully specify compatibility behavior of receipt gas fields.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The intended semantic direction is clear, but several representation and interface details remain unresolved in the sealed draft.
Security risks1Correctness matters for consensus receipt construction, but the new rule is self-contained, directly testable, and does not specify a changed security invariant or interaction with multiple critical mechanisms.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction A deterministic receipt value changes for all post-activation receipts, but the mechanism is localized to selecting the individual transaction gas value.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations The EIP states that there are no security considerations.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The one-word security section provides no analysis of misimplementation or application risks.
Show 23 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification The complete specification adds no EVM instruction and is confined to receipts and JSON-RPC output.
Uncertainty: Opcodes are not mentioned in the sealed proposal.
Modified opcodes0No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction The proposal changes post-execution receipt data, not the result or behavior of any opcode.
Uncertainty: No opcode-level change is present in the sealed EIP.
Added precompiles0No precompile is added.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile address, input, output, gas rule, or execution behavior is introduced.
Uncertainty: Precompiles are not mentioned in the sealed proposal.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification The receipt and RPC changes do not specify any precompile logic or gas-accounting modification.
Uncertainty: No precompile-related behavior is present in the sealed EIP.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification contains only receipt construction and JSON-RPC changes and introduces no contract.
Uncertainty: No contract address, code, state, or system action is described.
Modified system contracts0No pre-existing system contract code, state, or behavior is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification Neither receipt gas semantics nor receipt-relative RPC log indexing specifies a direct or indirect system-contract modification.
Uncertainty: System contracts are not mentioned in the sealed EIP.
EVM Gas rule changes0Receipt representation changes do not update or introduce an EVM gas-accounting mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction The proposal changes which already-computed gas quantity is stored in receipts; it specifies no EVM gas charging rule.
Uncertainty: The sealed specification contains no gas schedule, gas charge, or metering change.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode's state-access position or gas-charge ordering is changed.
  • eip.md · Specification The complete specification is limited to receipt construction and JSON-RPC log indexing, with no opcode execution or state-access ordering rule.
Uncertainty: No state-accessing operation or opcode path is described in the sealed proposal.
Blob gas accounting changes0The proposal introduces no blob-gas accounting rule or mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction The only gas-related change is storing individual transaction gasUsed rather than its cumulative receipt value.
Uncertainty: Blob gas is not mentioned anywhere in the sealed EIP.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas cost or state-gas charging mechanism changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Receipt value semantics and RPC log indexing are changed; state writes, state-gas rates, budgets, reservoirs, and spill behavior are not specified.
Uncertainty: The sealed EIP contains no state-gas provisions.
New EVM gas refund0Changing the reported gas quantity does not create an EVM gas-refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction The receipt records per-transaction gasUsed, but no refund calculation or refund mechanism is introduced.
Uncertainty: Refunds are not mentioned in the sealed proposal.
New transaction types0No new transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Abstract The proposal changes on-chain receipt data for transactions and does not define a transaction envelope or type.
Uncertainty: Transaction types are not mentioned in the sealed EIP.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Receipt output semantics do not modify transaction validity mechanisms.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction The rule applies when constructing receipts after transaction execution and specifies no transaction admission, validity, or intrinsic-gas rule.
Uncertainty: No validity predicate or intrinsic gas calculation is included in the sealed proposal.
New block / header fields0No new block or block-header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification The EIP changes receipt contents and JSON-RPC log indices but does not add a block or header field.
Uncertainty: Block and header schemas are not modified in the sealed text.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)Under-specified0Changed receipt contents alone do not establish the rubric's transaction, block, or interface encoding-format change.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction The specified change is the meaning of the gas quantity tracked in receipts; no RLP, SSZ, JSON, field type, or serialization-format change is defined.
Uncertainty: The draft does not explicitly say whether the existing receipt slot is reinterpreted or the receipt schema is replaced; this material ambiguity is recorded separately.
Block syncing changes0No new RLP validation mechanism requiring client syncing is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification The proposal changes receipt value semantics and an RPC index but defines no block RLP validation mechanism.
Uncertainty: Receipt schema details are sparse, but the EIP does not state any block RLP validation change.
New fork activation mechanism0A fork-conditional rule without an activation-block mutation is not a new activation mechanism under this anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction The new receipt semantics apply after activation, but no state, internal variable, migration, or activation-block action is specified.
Uncertainty: The activation point is not supplied, but no activation-block mutation is proposed.
Engine API changes0A JSON-RPC semantic change is not evidence of an Engine API change.
  • eip.md · Specification > JSON-RPC API The only API change named is JSON-RPC logs.logIndex semantics; no Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism is specified.
Uncertainty: The Engine API is not mentioned in the sealed proposal.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified0No transition-tool interface modification can be established from the sealed package.
  • eip.md · Specification The EIP specifies on-chain receipt construction and JSON-RPC logIndex semantics but does not specify a transition-tool field or mechanism.
Uncertainty: The draft does not state whether or how a transition tool exposes the replaced receipt field; this is recorded as material under-specification.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Existing receipt expectations require changed values, scored as test rework above, but tests do not gain an additional invariant to assert.
  • eip.md · Specification > Receipt construction An existing cumulative receipt value is replaced by an individual value; the proposal does not add a separate receipt property or assertion.
Uncertainty: The sealed EIP does not describe test assertions, but its specified operation is replacement rather than addition.
New test-framework primitives0Value-level receipt and RPC expectations do not, on the sealed evidence, require a new framework abstraction.
  • eip.md · Specification The change supplies deterministic per-transaction receipt and per-receipt log-index outputs without specifying any new test expectation type, modifier, or helper.
Uncertainty: The EIP contains no testing section, so this score is limited to the absence of any package-specified primitive requirement.
Cryptography0No cryptography-related testing is required by the proposal.
  • eip.md · Specification Receipt gas values and log indices are the only modified mechanisms; no cryptographic construction or function is introduced.
Uncertainty: No cryptographic mechanism is mentioned in the sealed EIP.
Cross-EIP interactions0No package-grounded cross-EIP interaction can be identified without importing prohibited external knowledge.
  • eip.md · Specification The receipt and JSON-RPC rules cite no numbered EIP and state no dependency on, modification of, or conflict with another proposal.
Uncertainty: Existing receipt and RPC mechanisms are affected, but the sealed package does not attribute either mechanism to an interacting EIP.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8116.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob c1f453382a · sha256 587ad8509b9d
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-8116.yaml · sha256 16f0427e1bf2
Compare EIP-8116 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.