Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8198: Quick Slots

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, consensus
LLM Completescore 17
Human Pending· This EIP joined the Hegotá candidate lists after the human-checklist snapshot was captured.

LLM assessment

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

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-8198 makes slot duration a runtime, fork-activated configuration and reduces SLOT_DURATION_MS from 12,000 to 8,000 ms. Most of the changes are consensus-layer constants: issuance, inactivity leak, data-availability windows and churn limits. On the execution layer, the first block at or after the fork timestamp must set gas_limit = parent_gas_limit * 8000 // 12000, which bypasses the ±1/1024 rule for that one block. The EIP also appends an EIP-7892 BLOB_SCHEDULE entry with max blobs scaled the same way and a target "derived as usual". The EIP describes the EL impact as limited to these one-time gas-limit and blob-parameter adjustments at the fork boundary.

17MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 3 criteria affected
Plausible range
16–19 (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. Block syncing changes2
  2. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
  3. Performance risks2
  4. Edge/boundary conditions2

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 blob schedule entry does not specify the EL target value or baseFeeUpdateFraction; the target is only "derived as usual". The EIP also does not say whether the fork-block gas limit is checked as an exact equality or how it combines with any other gas-limit bounds.

Plausible total

16–19
recorded score 17 · plausible tiers Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)
  • What baseFeeUpdateFraction applies to the new blob schedule entry: unchanged, or scaled?
  • What exact formula derives the EL blob target from the new max ('as usual' is undefined in the supplied text)?
  • Is the fork-block gas limit validated as an exact equality, and does any other gas-limit bound still apply to that block?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)
  • The fork's baseFeeUpdateFraction and EL target for the new blob schedule entry are unspecified.
  • The fork-block gas limit is presumably validated by exact equality to the formula; this is implied by MUST but not stated as a validation rule.
  • The 8,000 ms value is a placeholder and may be revised, so the blob and gas-limit scaling ratios may change.
  • The EIP does not address wall-clock assumptions in timestamp-based EL buffers (e.g., history buffers).

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8198 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Block syncing changes2Exactly one complex structural header-validation rule changes: the gas limit must equal a value derived from the parent at the fork boundary. It must be tested through block import, which is level 2.
  • eip.md · Gas limit adjustment — "MUST set its gas limit to" Header gas-limit validation for the fork block depends on the parent header and the fork timestamp.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Blob count limits change only as parameter values and are not counted as a structural rule.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2Rework is needed in fork-transition tests, where the transition block must carry the scaled gas limit and gas-limit-boundary expectations change. It is also needed in blob-limit and excess-blob-gas tests at the new fork parameters. These are localized cases in several families without a common rewrite across all families, which is level 2.
  • eip.md · Gas limit adjustment — "The first block produced at or after the fork activation timestamp MUST set its gas limit" Every block that crosses the fork boundary must use the scaled gas limit.
  • eip.md · Blob parameter adjustment Max blobs and target change at the fork, which changes expected values in blob limit and excess-blob-gas tests.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: How far transition tests across families depend on the gas limit at the fork block depends on how the suite is built.
Performance risks2Blocks become 1.5x more frequent with a shorter processing window. The fixed overhead of each block (state root, commit) and timing assumptions about block import and building need targeted integrated EL benchmarks. This is a bounded interaction, which is level 2.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations — Validator hardware requirements Shorter slots raise per-second computational demands, while gas per block decreases.
  • eip.md · Gas limit — "preserving the gas-per-second invariant" Throughput per second is meant to stay constant, but blocks become 1.5x as frequent.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The EIP defers performance characterization mainly to CL work in phase 2.
Edge/boundary conditions2There are two independent boundary-sensitive mechanisms. One is the fork-block gas limit: exact value ±1, truncation, the first block after missed slots, and the resumption of voting. The other is the new blob max/target boundary at the fork. No elevated matrix, which is level 2.
  • eip.md · Gas limit adjustment The fork-block gas limit must equal the exact truncated value. The first block at or after the fork timestamp is affected and the next block resumes ±1/1024.
  • eip.md · Blob parameter adjustment The new max blobs, with integer truncation, changes the per-block blob boundary.
Confidence: Medium
Cross-EIP interactions2The scaled blob entry interacts with EIP-7892 schedule switching. This needs coordinated fork-boundary cases: excess blob gas carried over when the target is reduced, blob base fee, and the new max at the fork block. That is level 2.
  • eip.md · Blob parameter adjustment — "A new entry MUST be appended to the BLOB_SCHEDULE (as defined in EIP-7892)" The target uses the EIP-7892 schedule mechanism.
  • supporting/eip-7892.md · Blob base fee computations Excess blob gas and base fee use the current block's schedule, so the fork boundary is sensitive.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Interactions with the gas-limit voting and EIP-1559 base fee are stated without EIP numbers.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-7892
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified2The EL needs an explicit target and baseFeeUpdateFraction for the new blob schedule entry. Neither is specified. The update fraction could be kept or scaled, which leads to different blob base fees, so the outcomes compete locally and agreement is needed (level 2).
  • eip.md · Blob parameter adjustment — "The blob target is derived from MAX_BLOBS_PER_BLOCK as usual" The EIP specifies no target formula or baseFeeUpdateFraction for the new entry.
  • supporting/eip-7892.md · Execution layer configuration EL blobSchedule entries need explicit target, max and baseFeeUpdateFraction values.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: An absent document might define the target derivation as usual. The update fraction remains open in the supplied text.
EVM Gas rule changesUnder-specified1The existing block gas limit rule changes once at the fork block. No new execution-gas accounting mechanism is added, which is level 1.
  • eip.md · Gas limit adjustment — "The normal gas limit adjustment rule (±1/1024) does not apply to this block" The block gas limit rule changes at the fork block: the gas limit must be scaled by 8000/12000, and voting resumes afterward.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The one-block override could be read as a new limit-setting mechanism (level 2). It is better described as a parameterized exception to the existing limit rule.
Blob gas accounting changes1Existing blob parameters (max and target) change through the existing EIP-7892 schedule mechanism. No new accounting mechanism is added, which is level 1.
  • eip.md · Blob parameter adjustment — "new_max_blobs = (old_max_blobs * SLOT_DURATION_MS) // old_slot_duration_ms" A new blob schedule entry scales max blobs, and the target follows from it.
  • supporting/eip-7892.md · Blob base fee computations Excess blob gas and blob base fee use the current block's schedule target and update fraction.
Confidence: High
Uncertainty: baseFeeUpdateFraction for the new entry is not specified.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms1Transaction eligibility checks against the block gas limit and blob max see changed bounds only. No new validation rule or sequence, which is level 1.
  • eip.md · Gas limit adjustment The block gas limit drops by one-third at the fork, which bounds the transaction gas that can be included.
  • eip.md · Blob parameter adjustment Lower max blobs per block bounds the blob transactions that can be included.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Changes in values alone could be read as level 0.
New test-framework primitives1The block/header builder needs a local fork-aware extension to compute the scaled transition-block gas limit, and the fork definition needs a new blob schedule entry. No new abstraction is needed, which is level 1.
  • eip.md · Gas limit adjustment Block construction at the fork boundary must derive a gas limit that depends on the fork.
Confidence: Medium
Security risks1The EL security conditions are the exact fork-block gas-limit and blob-limit checks, which can be validated locally. Weak subjectivity and propagation are CL concerns, so this is level 1.
  • eip.md · Gas limit adjustment If clients disagree on the fork-block gas-limit rule, the chain splits.
Confidence: Medium
Show 17 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new instruction.
  • eip.md · Specification No opcode is added.
Modified opcodes0No instruction semantics change.
  • eip.md · Specification No opcode semantics change.
Added precompiles0No new precompile.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile is added.
Modified precompiles0No precompile changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile changes.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts0No existing system contract changes. Timestamp-indexed buffers still work, though they cover less wall-clock time; the EIP does not discuss this.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract rules or behavior around them change.
Uncertainty: Wall-clock assumptions in history/beacon-root buffers are not addressed by the EIP.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification contains no opcode or state-access changes.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting rule changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Nothing in the specification touches state-gas accounting.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification adds no refund.
New transaction types0No new envelope.
  • eip.md · Specification No new transaction type.
New block / header fields0No header member is added.
  • eip.md · Gas limit adjustment Only the value of the existing gas_limit field is constrained.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No EL schema or codec changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only parameter values change, with no schema changes on the EL.
New fork activation mechanism0The one-time gas-limit scaling is a header-value validation rule at the fork block. It involves no migration of persistent state or installation of code, so it does not meet the level-3 condition.
  • eip.md · Gas limit adjustment The one-time action is a header value rule, not a migration of persistent state or code.
Uncertainty: Someone could treat the one-time gas-limit reset as an activation transition, although it is not persistent state.
Engine API changes0No Engine API fields or endpoints change.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility No Engine API change is described.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified0The gas limit is already an environment input, and the blob schedule is existing configuration. No interface field or mechanism change is required.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "one-time gas limit and blob parameter adjustment at the fork boundary" The EL change is limited to header gas-limit values and blob schedule configuration.
  • supporting/eip-7892.md · Execution layer configuration The blob schedule is already passed as fork configuration.
Uncertainty: Whether the tool must compute or validate the fork-block gas limit itself is not established by supplied tool evidence.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0No new output for baseline tests to assert.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification adds no new header, receipt or log output.
Cryptography0No cryptographic changes.
  • eip.md · Specification The specification has no cryptographic content.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8198.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob 1e65ed9f13 · sha256 7a300632ea15
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-8198.yaml · sha256 08c069ca7858
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-7892.md
Compare EIP-8198 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.