EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8131: Unified Transaction Content Floor

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 18

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

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer-only assessment of the Draft EIP-8131 snapshot. The proposal replaces or extends the existing transaction content-floor calculation so calldata, access-list entries, EIP-7702 authorization tuples, and EIP-4844 blob versioned hashes contribute at a nominal 64 gas per content byte.

18MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range: 17–21 (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

Cross-EIP interactions4
Edge/boundary conditions3
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2

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 charging rule does not define execution_gas_used, and its compact formula does not state how ordinary intrinsic components are combined with the new floor. In addition, saying that EIP-7981 is folded into the unified rule while keeping intrinsic gas unchanged leaves unclear whether its flat access-list data surcharge is retained, replaced, or double-counted. These are localized gas-accounting and validity questions. Separately, the 108-byte authorization constant is clear to implement but does not match the claimed maximum under the linked EIP-7702 field bounds.

Plausible total

17–21
recorded score 18 · plausible tiers Medium

Affected criteria (3)

EVM Gas rule changes (1)
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms (2)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

Does execution_gas_used in tx.gasUsed include TX_BASE, standard calldata and access-list intrinsic charges, creation charges, and EVM execution after refund, or only the last of those components?
Is EIP-7981's access_list_data_cost retained in intrinsic/ordinary gas after EIP-8131, or is it replaced by the access-list term in tx_floor?
How is AUTH_TUPLE_BYTES = 108 reconciled with EIP-7702 authorization chain_id values below 2**256 and tuples that remain transaction content even when an authorization fails its behavior checks?
What normative rule makes future variable-length transaction fields automatically contribute to tx_floor when the formula enumerates only the four current content categories?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The Backwards Compatibility section defines a binding floor by comparison with intrinsic plus execution gas, but the normative Charging formula compares the floor only with the undefined execution_gas_used term.
EIP-8131 calls 108 bytes the worst-case EIP-7702 tuple RLP size using a nine-byte chain_id, while EIP-7702 permits chain_id below 2**256 and continues past invalid authorization tuples rather than invalidating the outer transaction.
The proposal claims automatic pricing of future variable-length fields, but supplies no generic content-byte definition or extension rule.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8131 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactionsExceptional	4	Coordinated gas, validity, and boundary testing is required for 1559, 2028, 2930, 4844, 7623, 7702, 7976, and 7981. The proposal strongly combines or modifies several of their mechanisms, supporting base score 3; eight interacting EIPs contain at least one complete group of three beyond the first three, adding 1 under the uncapped rule. Exceptional score: Score 4 is mechanically justified by the uncapped anchor: strong interdependence merits 3, and the eight identified EIPs supply one +1 group of three additional interactions beyond the first three.	eip.md · Front matter requires; Abstract; Motivation Requires 2028, 4844, 7623, 7702, 7976, and 7981; replaces or extends the floor treatment of calldata, access lists, authorization tuples, and blob versioned hashes. eip.md · Rationale > Content-only, not full RLP; Backwards Compatibility Applies type-symmetric behavior to legacy, 2930, 1559, 4844, and 7702 transactions and explicitly relies on their existing content formats. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Only package-grounded direct interactions are listed; transitive EIPs not needed to test EIP-8131's specified surface are excluded. Interacting EIPs: EIP-1559, EIP-2028, EIP-2930, EIP-4844, EIP-7623, EIP-7702, EIP-7976, EIP-7981
Edge/boundary conditions	3	Multiple boundaries must be exercised across transaction types and mixtures of four content categories. In particular, equality and either side of both max operations create an elevated composition-by-threshold case matrix. Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is within the defined anchors.	eip.md · Specification > Transaction floor; Specification > Charging Introduces zero-for-absent field handling, four independently countable content categories, a max(intrinsic, tx_floor) validity boundary, and a max(execution_gas_used, tx_floor) charging boundary. eip.md · Test Cases Gives separate examples for empty content, calldata, access lists, authorization tuples, and blob versioned hashes. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The undefined scope of execution_gas_used makes the exact gasUsed boundary uncertain, but does not remove the multiple boundary dimensions.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified	2	Existing transaction types gain a modified gas-limit validity condition that affects floor-bound test cases. The arithmetic and available fields support limited vector updates without a necessary redesign of test infrastructure. Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is within the defined anchors.	eip.md · Specification > Charging Requires tx.gas to be at least the maximum of existing intrinsic gas and the new unified content floor while stating that intrinsic gas itself is unchanged. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Shows changed floor behavior across five existing transaction types and mandates updated gas estimation. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Whether the EIP-7981 access-list surcharge remains in intrinsic gas is not resolved by the sealed text and is recorded under under-specification.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	Existing gas and transaction-validity vectors for several transaction types require expected-value changes, but the affected category is localized to floor-bound or near-floor content-heavy cases rather than a diverse majority of execution tests. Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is within the defined anchors.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Reports changed floor binding and gas use across legacy, access-list, EIP-1559, blob, and set-code transactions, concentrated in floor-bound content-heavy cases. eip.md · Specification > Charging Existing transactions can become invalid at a prior gas limit or report a different gasUsed when the new floor wins. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package quantifies transaction impact but contains no inventory of pre-existing tests, so the exact affected-test count is not established.
Security risks	2	The floor changes consensus-critical gas and validation across several existing transaction components and is intended to enforce a bandwidth security invariant. Targeted review and fuzzing are needed, particularly because the authorization-size premise does not cover the linked EIP-7702 field bound. Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is within the defined anchors.	eip.md · Security Considerations > Block-size bound The security argument relies on every content byte being covered by the floor to derive a hard maximum block-content bound. supporting/eip-7702.md · Specification > Set code transaction; Specification > Behavior Allows authorization chain_id values below 2256 and charges every tuple, including tuples that fail behavior checks. eip.md · Rationale > Per-auth term is a constant Claims 108 bytes is the maximum authorization RLP size while budgeting only nine bytes for chain_id. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty:** The 108-gas-accounting constant is normative and deterministic, but the package evidence does not support its claimed worst-case-byte rationale.
Performance risks	2	Per-transaction arithmetic is simple, but the performance effect depends on block composition, gas-limit use, and transaction-type mix, so it cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation. The package indicates limited aggregate impact alongside a material worst-case bandwidth change. Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is within the defined anchors.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Estimates aggregate network gas rising 3.56%, with large floor and binding changes concentrated in set-code and blob-carrying transactions. eip.md · Security Considerations > Block-size bound Makes worst-case per-block attacker-controlled content and network payload size a central claimed effect of the mechanism. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The sealed package supplies modeled/sample impacts but no implementation or benchmark evidence, which is prohibited from supplementation.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Clients need localized agreement on which ordinary gas components are included in execution_gas_used and whether the EIP-7981 surcharge remains in intrinsic/normal gas before gasUsed and boundary vectors can be baselined. The ambiguity concerns already-observable gas accounting, so it does not meet the score-3 anchor. Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is within the defined anchors.	eip.md · Specification > Charging Sets tx.gasUsed to max(execution_gas_used, tx_floor) without defining execution_gas_used, while separately saying intrinsic gas is unchanged. supporting/eip-7623.md · Specification Defines execution_gas_used as EVM execution gas after refund and includes base, calldata, and creation costs separately in the prior gasUsed formula. eip.md · Motivation; Specification > Charging Says EIP-7981 is folded into the unified rule, yet also says intrinsic gas is unchanged, leaving the existing flat access-list surcharge treatment unresolved. Confidence: High Uncertainty: No implementations, discussions, or later clarifications may be consulted; assessment is limited to the internally incomplete snapshot text.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified	1	EIP-8131 updates the existing transaction floor by adding content categories and unifying the rate; it does not introduce a separate gas meter or replace the max-based accounting shape. Exceptional score: Not applicable; the score is within the defined anchors.	eip.md · Specification > Transaction floor; Specification > Charging Defines a content-count-based tx_floor and uses it in transaction gas-limit validity and gas-used maximum calculations. supporting/eip-7623.md · Specification Defines the pre-existing calldata floor and the max-shaped transaction gas accounting that EIP-8131 says it preserves. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The score treats the proposal as an update to the EIP-7623 family of floor rules. The undefined scope of execution_gas_used is recorded separately as material under-specification.

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is added.	eip.md · Specification Defines no opcode number, stack behavior, execution semantics, or opcode gas. Uncertainty: The change occurs before or around transaction execution, not as an EVM instruction.
Modified opcodes	No pre-existing opcode behavior is modified or deprecated.	eip.md · Specification Changes transaction-floor computation and charging only; no opcode result or behavior is mentioned. Uncertainty: Transaction gas accounting is covered by its own anchor.
Added precompiles	No precompile is added.	eip.md · Specification No precompile address, input, output, gas schedule, or execution logic is defined. Uncertainty: Existing blob hashes are merely counted and do not invoke a precompile.
Modified precompiles	No pre-existing precompile is modified.	eip.md · Specification Contains no change to any precompile's logic or gas accounting. Uncertainty: The proposal has no precompile execution surface.
Added system contracts	No system contract is added.	eip.md · Specification The complete normative mechanism consists of constants, a transaction-floor formula, and transaction charging rules; no contract is introduced. Uncertainty: No system-contract address, code, state, or action appears in the proposal.
Modified system contracts	No direct or indirect modification to a pre-existing system contract is specified.	eip.md · Specification Applies transaction-level floor and charging changes without referring to existing system-contract code, state, or invocation behavior. Uncertainty: No system-contract interaction is present in the sealed proposal.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No state access, gas charge relative to an opcode state access, or recordable state-access ordering is modified.	eip.md · Specification The normative changes calculate a transaction-level floor from decoded transaction content and alter charging; no opcode execution path is changed. Uncertainty: No opcode-level state-access behavior is specified in the sealed proposal.
Blob gas accounting changes	Pricing blob versioned hashes in the ordinary transaction floor is not a change to the independent blob-gas accounting mechanism.	eip.md · Specification > Transaction floor; Specification > Charging Counts 32 execution-payload bytes per blob versioned hash only in tx_floor. supporting/eip-4844.md · Specification > Gas accounting Defines blob gas as an independent gas type priced through GAS_PER_BLOB and excess_blob_gas; EIP-8131 does not modify those rules. Uncertainty: The sealed text never changes GAS_PER_BLOB, blob fees, blob-gas limits, or excess-blob-gas calculation.
State gas accounting changes	No state-write gas cost, state-gas charging site, block state-gas budget, reservoir, or spill path is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification Specifies only transaction content-floor constants, a floor formula, and transaction charging rules. Uncertainty: No state-gas mechanism appears in the proposal.
New EVM gas refund	No new gas refund mechanism is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Charging Changes gas-limit validity and gasUsed via maximum operations without defining any refund-counter addition or refund mechanism. Uncertainty: The proposal contains no refund rule.
New transaction types	No new transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Transaction floor; Backwards Compatibility Applies one rule to already-existing legacy and types 1 through 4; no new type identifier or payload format is defined. Uncertainty: All affected transaction forms pre-exist in the sealed supporting documents.
New block / header fields	No new block or header field is introduced.	eip.md · Specification Defines no block-body or header field and derives the floor entirely per transaction. Uncertainty: The block gas limit is used only in rationale arithmetic, not modified structurally.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No transaction, block, or interface encoding format is changed.	eip.md · Rationale > Content-only, not full RLP Deliberately prices selected content rather than encoded envelope and signature bytes; it does not alter their encoding. eip.md · Specification > Transaction floor Uses counts from existing decoded transaction fields without defining a new serialization. Uncertainty: The use of a worst-case RLP byte constant for authorizations is accounting, not an RLP encoding change.
Block syncing changes	No new block RLP validation mechanism requiring sync-client testing is introduced.	eip.md · Rationale > Content-only, not full RLP; Specification Explicitly avoids charging encoded envelope bytes and specifies no block or transaction RLP structural validation change. Uncertainty: Transaction validity changes are scored separately from RLP validation.
New fork activation mechanism	No state, internal variable, or similar value is modified specially at the fork-activation block.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility States only that a hard fork is required and specifies no activation-block transition. Uncertainty: Activation scheduling is absent, but no special activation mechanism is needed by the rule.
Engine API changes	No Engine API field, mechanism, or endpoint is introduced.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility; Security Considerations > Gas estimation Calls for wallet and eth_estimateGas updates but specifies no Engine API endpoint, field, or execution/consensus communication change. Uncertainty: eth_estimateGas is an RPC concern, not an Engine API change under this anchor.
Transition-tool interface changes	No transition-tool input or output field, fork-block flag, or new interface mechanism is specified.	eip.md · Specification > Transaction floor Computes the floor solely from transaction fields already present in the affected transaction formats. Uncertainty: Tool implementation is outside the package, but the normative inputs require no new block-level interface data.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Affected tests must revise gas expectations; they do not gain a separate new invariant or assertion produced by the EIP.	eip.md · Specification > Transaction floor; Specification > Charging Alters existing validity and gasUsed results but introduces no new receipt, header, state, or other output that unrelated tests must additionally assert. Uncertainty: No additional test-visible output is specified.
New test-framework primitives	Existing transaction construction and gas/validity expectations suffice; no new reusable expectation, modifier, or framework abstraction is required by the sealed text.	eip.md · Test Cases Expresses cases using existing transaction forms, ordinary content counts, and numeric gas-floor expectations. Uncertainty: The package does not describe a concrete test framework, so this is based on the proposal's required test inputs and outputs only.
Cryptography	No cryptographic mechanism or cryptographic functionality is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification > Constants; Specification > Transaction floor Counts authorization tuples and blob versioned hashes without changing how either is created, signed, hashed, or verified. Uncertainty: Existing cryptographic fields are inputs only to integer counts.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8131.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 8710275f91 · sha256 a961c863da66
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-8131.yaml · sha256 48a2261f0e68
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-1559.md, supporting/eip-2028.md, supporting/eip-2930.md, supporting/eip-4844.md, supporting/eip-7623.md, supporting/eip-7702.md, supporting/eip-7976.md, supporting/eip-7981.md

Compare EIP-8131 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.