EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8146: Block Access List Sidecars

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, consensus

LLM Completescore 20

Human Available in open PRscore 19 · Checklist revision 2· ethspecs/pm #106

LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-26 · Original snapshot · 20 Human · Checklist revision 2Available in open PR · 19 CompareHuman vs LLM · same checklist revision

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

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer-only assessment of the draft EIP-8146 snapshot. The scored surface separates the EIP-7928 RLP-encoded block access list from payload delivery, adds early BAL delivery and block-hash pairing through the Engine API, and enables EL prefetching or optional post-state-root computation. CL sidecar gossip, PTC voting, fork choice, and SSZ-container work are boundary context and are not scored as execution-layer complexity.

20MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 4 criteria affected
Plausible range: 17–22 (Medium)
Snapshot: 2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)

Score bands · Checklist revision 2

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

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 new asynchronous Engine API protocol is materially under-specified. Its happy path and required notify-before-newPayload order are clear, but its response and error schemas, malformed input handling, duplicate or conflicting notifications, blockHash cache lifetime and eviction, and orphan/reorg behavior are not. These are one connected API-lifecycle gap and are not separately multiplied across unrelated EVM anchors.

Plausible total

17–22
recorded score 20 · plausible tiers Medium

Affected criteria (4)

New test-framework primitives (1)
Security risks (2)
Edge/boundary conditions (2)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

What result and error objects does engine_notifyBlockAccessListV1 return for success, malformed RLP, an unknown blockHash, or resource-limit failure?
How must the EL handle duplicate or conflicting BAL notifications for the same blockHash, including a notification after payload processing?
What cache bounds, retention, eviction, and reorg/orphan rules apply to BALs received for payloads that arrive late or never arrive?
What is the exact engine_getPayloadV6 response container after blockAccessList is removed from the ExecutionPayload, and how is that shape versioned?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

The claimed protocol-enforced one-second useful-work window does not align cleanly with the specified envelope-first case, which says the eventual EL head start is zero; this affects performance expectations but not the existence of the performance-testing burden.
EIP-7928 describes engine_newPayloadV5 as accepting an ExecutionPayloadV4 that contains blockAccessList, whereas EIP-8146 says engine_newPayloadV5 is unchanged yet does not carry the BAL. The intended replacement flow is evident, but the precise versioned interface definition is not provided.
CL validation hashes opaque BAL bytes and the EL begins work immediately, but the point at which malformed RLP is rejected before or during speculative EL work is not stated.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8146 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Engine API changes	3	Multiple Engine API fields are introduced or relocated across the get and notify paths, and a new endpoint is added, satisfying the score-3 anchor.	eip.md · Specification > Engine API > engine_getPayloadV6 getPayload returns a separate blockAccessList field alongside the ExecutionPayload. eip.md · Specification > Engine API > New engine_notifyBlockAccessListV1 A new endpoint takes blockAccessList and blockHash and triggers storage and prefetch work. eip.md · Specification > Engine API > engine_newPayloadV5 newPayload no longer carries the BAL and must follow the matching notify call. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The exact JSON response and error schemas are omitted, but the endpoint and its multiple parameters plus the getPayload field are explicit.
Performance risks	3	The mechanism deliberately changes performance on the payload-validation critical path and couples network arrival, Engine API scheduling, state-cache behavior, execution, and optional parallel root computation. It cannot be validated fully in isolation and substantially affects existing performance benchmarks, meeting score 3.	eip.md · Abstract A roughly 70 KiB average and potentially large BAL is moved off the payload critical path to create an execution prefetch head start. eip.md · Specification > Engine API > New engine_notifyBlockAccessListV1 On notification, the EL stores the BAL, warms state through prefetching, and may begin parallel post-state-root computation. eip.md · Motivation The stated objective is shorter payload propagation and validation to make slot-time headroom available for gas-limit increases. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The package supplies size claims and sequencing but no benchmarks, and it leaves the optional precomputation strategy implementation-defined.
Cross-EIP interactions	3	The proposal strongly composes EIP-7732's separated payload delivery with EIP-7928's BAL commitment and validation, requiring coordinated vectors for both, while also creating an explicit but more limited EIP-7805 interaction. Three interacting EIPs and two deep interdependencies justify score 3; no uncapped increment applies because there are not more than three.	eip.md · Preamble > requires EIP-8146 explicitly requires EIPs 7732 and 7928. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility It modifies EIP-7732 payload and bid containers and changes propagation of EIP-7928 BALs. eip.md · Abstract The early BAL is also designed to help EIP-7805 inclusion-list builders avoid transactions invalidated by the pending block. supporting/eip-7805.md · Specification > Execution Layer EIP-7805 performs post-payload validity checks for omitted inclusion-list transactions, the operation the early BAL is intended to assist. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The EIP-7805 benefit is motivational rather than a normative dependency, but it still calls for interaction testing where both mechanisms are enabled. Interacting EIPs: EIP-7732, EIP-7805, EIP-7928
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	Existing Engine API tests for the EIP-7928 BAL path require considerable but category-local reworking to remove BAL delivery from newPayload, issue the notification first, and pair both calls by block hash.	eip.md · Specification > Engine API BAL and payload delivery are split, getPayload returns the BAL separately, and the new notify call must precede newPayload for the same block hash. supporting/eip-7928.md · Specification > Engine API The inherited BAL flow put blockAccessList in ExecutionPayloadV4 and had engine_newPayloadV5 validate that supplied field. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package seals no implementation or test inventory, so the affected test count is inferred only from the specified replacement of the BAL API flow.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	2	The broad class of post-fork Engine API payload tests gains a mechanical ordering-and-pairing invariant even when the test's subject is not sidecar propagation; this is broader than a contrived case but not every EL test.	eip.md · Specification > Engine API For a given blockHash, engine_notifyBlockAccessListV1 must be called before engine_newPayloadV5, and the EL may rely on BAL presence at payload delivery. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package does not define which test families exercise CL-to-EL delivery, so the precise breadth below all fork tests is uncertain.
Security risksUnder-specified	2	Early action on builder-committed but not yet execution-validated BAL data touches the Engine cache, state I/O, and later payload validation, slightly altering resource-exhaustion and correct-pairing assumptions and warranting targeted review and fuzzing.	eip.md · Specification > Engine API > New engine_notifyBlockAccessListV1 The EL stores and acts on BAL bytes before payload arrival by prefetching and optionally computing a post-state root. eip.md · Security Considerations The EIP identifies withholding, network overhead, and hashing up to the maximum BAL size, while retaining payload validation as the safety gate. supporting/eip-7928.md · Security Considerations > Early Rejection of Malicious BALs The inherited BAL design recognizes malicious declarations can force unnecessary I/O and defer rejection until execution advances. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Notify-call input validation, cache bounds, eviction, duplicates, and errors are unspecified, preventing a firmer assessment of the risk envelope.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	2	Multiple boundary-prone cases require testing: BAL/payload hash pairing, separate arrival timing, missing or mismatched notifications, and minimum or maximum BAL payloads. The EIP constrains the valid call order, limiting the combinatorial burden below the highest anchor.	eip.md · Specification > Engine API BAL and payload are separate calls keyed by blockHash, with mandatory ordering and a best case in which the BAL precedes the payload. eip.md · Specification > Fork Choice > Modified on_execution_payload_envelope The envelope-first arrival case is cached and replayed only after the BAL is delivered, establishing an EL-facing ordering boundary. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Duplicate, conflicting, late, and orphaned notifications are not specified, so the final number of execution-client boundary cases is uncertain.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Multiple test-constructable details require client agreement before Engine API tests can be baselined. The gaps are material but localized to the new asynchronous delivery and cache protocol, matching score 2 rather than a protocol-wide re-baselining.	eip.md · Specification > Engine API > New engine_notifyBlockAccessListV1 The method defines parameters and successful EL actions but no response, error, duplicate, conflict, malformed-input, or lifecycle behavior. eip.md · Specification > Engine API > engine_getPayloadV6 The BAL is said to be a separate response field, but the exact response container and failure semantics are not specified. eip.md · Specification > Engine API > engine_newPayloadV5 The EL must pair a previously delivered BAL by blockHash, but orphaned, repeated, or conflicting entries are not resolved in the text. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The EIP is Draft and the sealed package contains no permitted implementation, devnet, discussion-thread, or test evidence with which to resolve these gaps.
New test-framework primitivesUnder-specified	1	An Engine API test harness needs a minor extension to issue the new method and express the required before-newPayload sequence, while ordinary call/result assertions should otherwise suffice.	eip.md · Specification > Engine API > New engine_notifyBlockAccessListV1 A new two-parameter Engine API method delivers a BAL independently before payload submission. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: The sealed package contains no test-framework description, so whether this is merely a helper addition or a reusable new expectation primitive is unresolved.

Show 19 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is added.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The EIP retains existing execution and BAL validation rules. Uncertainty: No opcode-table or EVM-instruction change appears in the package.
Modified opcodes	No existing opcode result or non-gas behavior is modified.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The proposal states that BAL construction and validation are unchanged. Uncertainty: Inherited EIP-7928 observability rules are not changed by sidecar transport.
Added precompiles	No precompile is added.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer Only BAL transport and early EL processing are specified. Uncertainty: The package specifies no precompile address or call behavior.
Modified precompiles	No precompile logic or gas schedule is modified.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer Existing execution and BAL validation semantics are retained. Uncertainty: Precompiles may be represented in a BAL under EIP-7928, but EIP-8146 does not change their behavior.
Added system contracts	No system contract is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The execution-layer change is limited to BAL delivery and validation. Uncertainty: System-contract accesses recorded by the inherited BAL are not contracts added by EIP-8146.
Modified system contracts	No existing system-contract code, state, or behavior is modified.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer BAL construction and validation remain those of EIP-7928. Uncertainty: Prefetching entries that may include system-contract state has no specified behavioral effect on those contracts.
EVM Gas rule changes	No EVM gas schedule or gas-accounting mechanism is added or modified on the execution layer.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The EL block-access-list construction and validation rules remain those of EIP-7928; this proposal changes delivery rather than EVM gas accounting. Uncertainty: The package specifies no gas-rule change; performance motivation for future gas-limit increases is not itself a gas-accounting change.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	EIP-8146 does not change inherited within-opcode access or gas-charge ordering; it only transports the resulting BAL separately.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer BAL construction and validation rules are explicitly left unchanged from EIP-7928. supporting/eip-7928.md · Specification > Gas Validation Before State Access The inherited proposal defines the opcode state-access and gas-validation ordering that determines BAL inclusion. Uncertainty: No EIP-8146 text reopens or overrides the inherited opcode-ordering rules.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas accounting mechanism or value is changed.	eip.md · Specification > Engine API > engine_newPayloadV5 The existing payload call is described as unchanged apart from the BAL being delivered separately; no blob-gas rule is specified. Uncertainty: Consensus-side blob availability is mentioned only to distinguish it from BAL availability and is outside the scored EL surface.
State gas accounting changes	No state-gas charging site, rate, reservoir, budget, or spill interaction is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The execution-layer change preserves EIP-7928 BAL construction and validation and introduces no state-writing gas budget or charge. Uncertainty: Prefetching state is a performance operation, not a state-gas charge.
New EVM gas refund	No new EVM refund mechanism is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The proposal confines the EL change to BAL delivery and retains existing BAL validation rules. Uncertainty: The package contains no refund-rule amendment attributable to EIP-8146.
New transaction types	No transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The proposal changes BAL propagation, not transaction envelopes. Uncertainty: FOCIL transaction filtering is a stated benefit, not a transaction-type change.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	EIP-8146 introduces no transaction validity or intrinsic-gas rule; it changes when auxiliary BAL data reaches the EL.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer BAL construction and validation rules stay as specified in EIP-7928. Uncertainty: Its stated benefit to FOCIL builders filtering invalidated transactions does not impose a new EIP-8146 transaction-validity rule.
New block / header fields	No new execution block or execution header field is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The execution block header block_access_list_hash field is explicitly unchanged from EIP-7928. Uncertainty: The new field in the CL ExecutionPayloadBid is outside the execution-layer scoring boundary.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	The execution-layer interface relocates an existing RLP byte sequence but does not switch or alter its encoding.	eip.md · Specification > Engine API The BAL remains RLP-encoded bytes when returned by getPayload and delivered through notifyBlockAccessList. eip.md · Rationale > Single Commitment, Shared Across Layers The existing keccak256 of the RLP-encoded BAL is reused unchanged. Uncertainty: New and modified SSZ containers are consensus-layer work and are excluded by the execution-only assessment boundary.
Block syncing changes	No new execution-block RLP validation mechanism requiring client block-sync testing is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The EL block header commitment is unchanged from EIP-7928; the EIP changes propagation of the committed BAL rather than block RLP validation. Uncertainty: CL sidecar req/resp and retention requirements are not scored as EL block syncing under this anchor.
New fork activation mechanism	No execution state, pre-existing internal variable, or irregular transition is modified at fork activation.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer The EL header and BAL validation rules remain unchanged, with no activation block state mutation specified. Uncertainty: Activation of a new RPC capability is not a state or internal-variable mutation under this anchor.
Transition-tool interface changes	The EIP does not require a new transition-tool field or mechanism because its scored change is asynchronous Engine API delivery, not a state-transition input or output change.	eip.md · Specification > Execution Layer Execution semantics and BAL construction/validation are unchanged; the new transport is specified under the Engine API. Uncertainty: No transition-tool section is provided, but no changed transition semantics establish a need to extend that interface.
Cryptography	Existing Keccak-256 commitment verification is reused; no new cryptographic mechanism is added on the execution layer.	eip.md · Rationale > Single Commitment, Shared Across Layers The design reuses the EIP-7928 keccak256 commitment and explicitly avoids a second hashing scheme. eip.md · Rationale > No Separate Signature No separate sidecar signature or new signature scheme is introduced. Uncertainty: A new CL dependency on an existing Keccak implementation is not new cryptography and is outside the scored EL surface.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8146.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 2b8ad5f286 · sha256 6ae7e9e4ae78
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-8146.yaml · sha256 b4458238454c
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-7732.md, supporting/eip-7805.md, supporting/eip-7928.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

19MediumMedium

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v2
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2026-08-17
Source: open ethspecs/pm pull request #106

Score bands · Checklist revision 2

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

Engine API changes3
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3
New test-framework primitives3
Cross-EIP interactions3

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8146 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Engine API changes	3	A new endpoint (`engine_notifyBlockAccessListV1`) plus a modified one (`engine_getPayloadV6` returns the BAL as a separate field); `engine_newPayloadV5` drops the BAL.	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	3	Every `blockchain_test_engine` fixture changes delivery shape: the BAL leaves the payload and arrives via a separate engine call, so the engine fixture format and its consumption flow are reworked. The engine format spans every test in the fork, so the rework crosses the entire fixture set.	—
New test-framework primitives	3	Engine-fixture format version plus consume-engine sequencing machinery (notify-then-payload ordering, queueing, missing/mismatched-BAL cases) — permanent framework-level infrastructure exercised beyond this EIP.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	3	Structurally dependent on EIP-7732 (envelope, PTC) and EIP-7928 (moves its object); coordinated testing with EIP-7805 (the motivating FOCIL interaction) and EIP-8268 (encoding inside the sidecar). Strong interdependencies; no +1 increment (four interacting).	—
Security risks	2	Availability/queueing surface (payloads parked awaiting a BAL, BALs stored by blockHash across reorgs) interacts with the block-delivery path; targeted review.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	2	Multiple bounded mechanisms: BAL-before/after-payload ordering, payload queued awaiting BAL, missing BAL, commitment mismatch, duplicate delivery, the 8 MiB size bound.	—
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	EL-side semantics need agreement before consume tests can be baselined: queue timeout/eviction, behavior when the BAL never arrives, reorg handling of stored BALs; localized to the engine layer.	—
Performance risks	1	Prefetching and parallel post-state-root computation are MAY-behaviors, benchmarkable in isolation; the EIP's latency goals live on the CL side.	—

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	No rationale recorded.	—
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No rationale recorded.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
State gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	—
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No rationale recorded.	—
New block / header fields	No rationale recorded.	—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No rationale recorded.	—
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New fork activation mechanism	No rationale recorded.	—
Transition-tool interface changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	No rationale recorded.	—
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	—

Assessment provenance

Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Open pull request #106: Add EIP-8146 complexity assessment · checklist at 5963e7a7e1 · updated 2026-08-17
blob 4f6d996a10 · sha256 31857ce936b0
Research record: research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-8146.yaml · sha256 019e2ddf991c

Both assessments applied Checklist revision 2 (28 criteria) to EIP-8146 in Hegotá. Δ is LLM minus Human.

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

LLM20Medium

Human19Medium

Δ total+1Same tier

Criteria24/28agree exactly · 1 differ by 1 · 3 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: New invariant on pre-existing tests (+2), New test-framework primitives (−2), Performance risks (+2), Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (−1)

Show differences only (4 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
New invariant on pre-existing tests	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The broad class of post-fork Engine API payload tests gains a mechanical ordering-and-pairing invariant even when the test's subject is not sidecar propagation; this is broader than a contrived case but not every EL test. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	1	3	−2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM An Engine API test harness needs a minor extension to issue the new method and express the required before-newPayload sequence, while ordinary call/result assertions should otherwise suffice. Human Engine-fixture format version plus consume-engine sequencing machinery (notify-then-payload ordering, queueing, missing/mismatched-BAL cases) — permanent framework-level infrastructure exercised beyond this EIP.
Performance risks	3	1	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The mechanism deliberately changes performance on the payload-validation critical path and couples network arrival, Engine API scheduling, state-cache behavior, execution, and optional parallel root computation. It cannot be validated fully in isolation and substantially affects existing performance benchmarks, meeting score 3. Human Prefetching and parallel post-state-root computation are MAY-behaviors, benchmarkable in isolation; the EIP's latency goals live on the CL side.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	3	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Existing Engine API tests for the EIP-7928 BAL path require considerable but category-local reworking to remove BAL delivery from newPayload, issue the notification first, and pair both calls by block hash. Human Every `blockchain_test_engine` fixture changes delivery shape: the BAL leaves the payload and arrives via a separate engine call, so the engine fixture format and its consumption flow are reworked. The engine format spans every test in the fork, so the rework crosses the entire fixture set.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No opcode is added. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No existing opcode result or non-gas behavior is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile is added. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile logic or gas schedule is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No existing system-contract code, state, or behavior is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No EVM gas schedule or gas-accounting mechanism is added or modified on the execution layer. Human No rationale recorded.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM EIP-8146 does not change inherited within-opcode access or gas-charge ordering; it only transports the resulting BAL separately. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas accounting mechanism or value is changed. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No state-gas charging site, rate, reservoir, budget, or spill interaction is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new EVM refund mechanism is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transaction type is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM EIP-8146 introduces no transaction validity or intrinsic-gas rule; it changes when auxiliary BAL data reaches the EL. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new execution block or execution header field is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The execution-layer interface relocates an existing RLP byte sequence but does not switch or alter its encoding. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new execution-block RLP validation mechanism requiring client block-sync testing is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No execution state, pre-existing internal variable, or irregular transition is modified at fork activation. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	3	3	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Multiple Engine API fields are introduced or relocated across the get and notify paths, and a new endpoint is added, satisfying the score-3 anchor. Human A new endpoint (`engine_notifyBlockAccessListV1`) plus a modified one (`engine_getPayloadV6` returns the BAL as a separate field); `engine_newPayloadV5` drops the BAL.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The EIP does not require a new transition-tool field or mechanism because its scored change is asynchronous Engine API delivery, not a state-transition input or output change. Human No rationale recorded.
Security risks	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Early action on builder-committed but not yet execution-validated BAL data touches the Engine cache, state I/O, and later payload validation, slightly altering resource-exhaustion and correct-pairing assumptions and warranting targeted review and fuzzing. Human Availability/queueing surface (payloads parked awaiting a BAL, BALs stored by blockHash across reorgs) interacts with the block-delivery path; targeted review.
Edge/boundary conditions	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Multiple boundary-prone cases require testing: BAL/payload hash pairing, separate arrival timing, missing or mismatched notifications, and minimum or maximum BAL payloads. The EIP constrains the valid call order, limiting the combinatorial burden below the highest anchor. Human Multiple bounded mechanisms: BAL-before/after-payload ordering, payload queued awaiting BAL, missing BAL, commitment mismatch, duplicate delivery, the 8 MiB size bound.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Existing Keccak-256 commitment verification is reused; no new cryptographic mechanism is added on the execution layer. Human No rationale recorded.
Cross-EIP interactions	3	3	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal strongly composes EIP-7732's separated payload delivery with EIP-7928's BAL commitment and validation, requiring coordinated vectors for both, while also creating an explicit but more limited EIP-7805 interaction. Three interacting EIPs and two deep interdependencies justify score 3; no uncapped increment applies because there are not more than three. Human Structurally dependent on EIP-7732 (envelope, PTC) and EIP-7928 (moves its object); coordinated testing with EIP-7805 (the motivating FOCIL interaction) and EIP-8268 (encoding inside the sidecar). Strong interdependencies; no +1 increment (four interacting).
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Multiple test-constructable details require client agreement before Engine API tests can be baselined. The gaps are material but localized to the new asynchronous delivery and cache protocol, matching score 2 rather than a protocol-wide re-baselining. Human EL-side semantics need agreement before consume tests can be baselined: queue timeout/eviction, behavior when the BAL never arrives, reorg handling of stored BALs; localized to the engine layer.

Compare EIP-8146 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.