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 2026-10-07EIP-8081: CFILayers: execution
LLM Completescore 9
Human Pending· No STEEL checklist existed on the ethspecs/pm default branch or in any open pull request at the snapshot.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2026-10-07 · 6dac5e7491 · EIP-8081 list: CFI

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-8116 changes the on-chain receipt so that, after activation, each receipt records the transaction's own `gasUsed` instead of the running block total `cumulativeGasUsed`. As a result, the serialized receipt contents and the `receiptsRoot` commitment change for every block with more than one transaction. The EIP also changes the JSON-RPC `logIndex` so it counts within each receipt instead of across the block. It says this second part is RPC-only. The EIP does not change gas charging, transaction validity, headers, opcodes, precompiles or system contracts.

9LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range
8–14 (Low–Medium)
Snapshot
2026-10-07 · EIP revision 6dac5e7491 (2026-10-07)
Score bands · Checklist revision 3
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3
  2. Block syncing changes1
  3. Transition-tool interface changes1
  4. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1

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 EIP does not define 'gasUsed' precisely or give the exact receipt encoding (whether the field keeps its position, type or name). The RPC logIndex change is described, but the exact activation semantics for RPC on pre-fork blocks are not.

Plausible total

8–14
recorded score 9 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)
  • Is per-transaction gasUsed the gas charged to the sender (after refunds and floors), or a block-accounting gas value?
  • Does gasUsed replace cumulativeGasUsed in the same RLP position with the same type in all typed receipts?
  • Does 'receipts emitted after this EIP activates' mean all receipts in blocks at or after the fork block?
  • Does the logIndex change apply to pre-fork blocks served over RPC?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • Whether 'gasUsed' means the pre-refund or post-refund amount is unstated.
  • The receipt RLP layout after the change is not given explicitly.
  • The logIndex change is RPC-only, but whether it applies to historical blocks is unspecified.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8116 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)3The meaning of a serialized field in the EL receipt (the object committed in receiptsRoot and exchanged between peers) changes from cumulative to per-transaction gas. That is a change to a receipt schema field.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction The serialized on-chain receipt's cumulativeGasUsed field is replaced by the per-transaction gasUsed.
  • eip.md · Abstract — "change the on-chain receipt data" The serialized receipt object is what changes.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP does not say whether the field keeps its position and type or the receipt layout otherwise changes.
Block syncing changesUnder-specified1Block import must now check `receiptsRoot` against receipts built with the new semantics, and receipt data exchanged during sync has a different meaning after the fork. This is treated as one changed validation rule.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction Receipt contents change, so the receiptsRoot that block import validates is derived differently after activation.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: This could be seen as an ordinary execution-result change (level 0). Alternatively, receipts-root checks depend on execution and could be called complex (level 2).
Transition-tool interface changes1The transition tool's receipt output changes the meaning of one field (cumulative gas → per-transaction gas), depending on the fork. No new exchange mechanism is needed.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction The receipt's cumulative gas field becomes per-transaction gas after activation.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No transition-tool schema was supplied, so whether the output keeps the field name or adds a new one is not evidenced.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified1Expected `receiptsRoot` values for multi-transaction blocks change, but filling the fixtures again regenerates them without changing test inputs or steps. Hand-written rework is limited to the receipt-focused cases that explicitly assert cumulative gas across multi-transaction blocks. That is a localized subset of one family.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction — "track the individual transaction's `gasUsed` instead of the incremental `cumulativeGasUsed`" Receipt contents change for every transaction after the first in a block.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Users of verified gasUsed/cumulativeGasUsed values must adapt.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If many baseline families explicitly assert per-receipt cumulative gas, the rework could reach level 2.
Security risks1Building receipts with the wrong semantics, especially around the fork boundary, would cause a receiptsRoot mismatch and a consensus split. This can be checked locally through receipt-root comparison.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — "None" The authors identify no security considerations.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction The receiptsRoot commitment, which is consensus-critical, changes semantics at the fork.
Confidence: Low
Uncertainty: This could be scored 0 because it is a plain consensus-value change.
Cross-EIP interactions1Each baseline transaction/receipt type and the existing gas-settlement rules only need local compatibility checks that the new per-transaction value is used correctly. No coordinated cross-EIP scenarios are required. No candidate EIPs were supplied.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction — "All receipts" Applies to every receipt, i.e. every typed-receipt format in the baseline.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Only application-level adaptation is discussed.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The definition of gasUsed may depend on baseline refund and floor rules not supplied here.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1The exact definition of the per-transaction gasUsed and its encoding details are omitted. The rationale supports one intended reading (the RPC receipt's gasUsed), so this is a localized omission.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction — "track the individual transaction's `gasUsed`" "gasUsed" is not defined precisely, e.g. before or after refunds or minimum-gas floors, and the encoded position or name is not given.
  • eip.md · Rationale — "aligning on-chain data with the RPC data" Points to the RPC receipt gasUsed (the gas the transaction is charged) as the intended value.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: If the baseline separates block-level gas from user-charged gas, competing readings could push this to level 2.
Show 21 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No opcodes are mentioned.
Modified opcodes0No opcode semantics change.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction semantics change. Log emission is unchanged; only RPC logIndex numbering changes.
Added precompiles0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles are mentioned.
Modified precompiles0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompiles are mentioned.
Added system contracts0None added.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are mentioned.
Modified system contracts0None modified.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contracts are mentioned.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas charging, metering, limit or settlement rule changes. Only the value recorded in the receipt changes.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction Only changes which gas value the receipt records. Gas charging and metering are untouched.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No opcode ordering or access-list rule changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No instruction-level state access or gas ordering is mentioned.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas accounting change.
  • eip.md · Specification Blob gas is not mentioned.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting change.
  • eip.md · Specification State-gas accounting is not mentioned.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund mechanism is introduced.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No new transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction-validity or intrinsic-gas change.
New block / header fields0No new header member.
  • eip.md · Specification Only the value of the existing receiptsRoot changes. No header field is added.
New fork activation mechanism0Only a fork-dependent rule selection is needed. No one-time state transition.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction — "All receipts emitted after this EIP activates" Only new receipts are affected. No migration of past state.
Engine API changes0No Engine API field or endpoint changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API change. The existing receiptsRoot field just carries a different value.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0No new output is added. The changed receipt value is rework under PAT, not a new assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction An existing receipt field changes its meaning. No new output is added.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified0The existing receipt expectation and receipts-root checks are enough. Only the expected value changes, depending on the fork.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction Changes only the value of an existing receipt field.
Uncertainty: If the framework computes receipts or receipt roots itself, it may need a small fork-aware extension (level 1).
Performance risks0No new or larger workload needs performance validation.
  • eip.md · Motivation The change is meant to remove a stateful dependency between receipts. It adds no workload.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified0No new boundary-sensitive rule. Cases such as single-transaction blocks (where the value is unchanged) and the fork transition block are ordinary coverage points.
  • eip.md · Specification / `Receipt` construction — "All receipts emitted after this EIP activates" The only boundary is ordinary fork activation.
Uncertainty: The fork-transition block could be treated as one boundary-sensitive mechanism (level 1).
Cryptography0Only the encoded message bytes change. The trie and hashing rules stay the same.
  • eip.md · Specification No hashing, signing or proof rule changes. The receipts trie keeps the same construction.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8116.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob c1f453382a · sha256 587ad8509b9d
Rubric
Checklist revision 3 · ethspecs/pm@fe2f793b03
Evaluator
Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5) at high effort, one tool-less call per EIP · isolation bubblewrap_claude_p_no_tools_v1
Source record
Frozen research record research/tasks/10-opus-v3-reassessment/prospective/outputs/assessments/hegota-2026-10-08/eip-8116.yaml · sha256 06550b2c1876
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 · not in checklist revision 1
    Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
    Score anchors
    0
    No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
    1
    A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
    2
    Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
    3
    The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
    • Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
    • Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
    • Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
  • Blob gas accounting changes
    New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
    Score anchors
    0
    No blob gas accounting changes.
    1
    Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
    2
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
    3
    A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
  • State gas accounting changes · not in checklist revision 1
    New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
    Score anchors
    0
    No state gas accounting changes.
    1
    An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
    2
    A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
    3
    A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
    • Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
  • New EVM gas refund
    New gas-refund mechanism
    Score anchors
    0
    No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
    1
    A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    2
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
    3
    A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

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

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

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

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

Testing impact

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

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

Risk and validation

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

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

Coordination

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

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