Retrospective LLM-Based Complexity Evaluations

EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8246: Remove SELFDESTRUCT Burn

Assessed in Amsterdam / Glamsterdam. The score describes the EIP text available at the assessment cutoff, not the EIP as it stands today.

RetrospectiveAmsterdam / GlamsterdamAssessment cutoff 2026-05-06Added after cutoffLayers: execution
LLM Completescore 11
Human Not available· The STEEL team did not publish a human checklist for this EIP in the Amsterdam assessment round.

LLM assessment

Evaluated on: · Spec revision: 2026-05-06 · 630c3420da

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-8246 changes SELFDESTRUCT for contracts created in the same transaction. When such a contract names itself as beneficiary, its balance now stays unchanged. At transaction finalization, accounts marked for selfdestruction are no longer deleted: their nonce is reset to 0, code and all storage are cleared, and their balance is kept. If the resulting balance is 0, the account is empty and EIP-161 deletes it; otherwise it stays in state as a balance-only account that CREATE2 can still redeploy over. Behavior for contracts not created in the same transaction is unchanged from EIP-6780.

11LowLow
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v3
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
Yes — 4 criteria affected
Plausible range
10–14 (Low–Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2026-05-06 · EIP revision 630c3420da (2026-05-06)
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. Modified opcodes3
  2. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
  3. Edge/boundary conditions2
  4. Cross-EIP interactions2

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 core rules are specified, but there are no test cases, and some finalization details are implicit: the account is modified rather than recreated, and EIP-161 touch-based deletion follows.

Plausible total

10–14
recorded score 11 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (2)
  • How does the finalization modification interact with other same-fork Amsterdam features, such as access lists or ETH transfer logs? None were supplied.
  • Is the surviving account always treated as touched, so that EIP-161 deletes it when its final balance is 0?
Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)
  • Specification item 1 covers only the self-beneficiary case. The 'value sent after SELFDESTRUCT' case is handled only through finalization.
  • The Test Cases section is TBD.
  • Optimism-based L2 chains that rely on the burn are mentioned, but no L1 rule addresses them.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8246 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes3SELFDESTRUCT's state-effect semantics change beyond gas or access ordering.
  • eip.md · Specification - 'The behaviour of SELFDESTRUCT is changed in the following way' SELFDESTRUCT's balance effect and its account-deletion effect change.
Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified2Ordinary cases throughout the same-transaction selfdestruct family need new expected post-states: balance kept, and a balance-only account surviving instead of being deleted. Other families that create and selfdestruct with leftover value, such as create, call and revert scenarios, need localized rework. This is level 2. Level 3 is a plausible alternative because the EIP says the change has a 'combinatory effect on vast amount of test scenarios'.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility - 'After this EIP, ETH will not be burned in either case.' Expected balances and post-state change for same-transaction selfdestruct to self and for value sent after SELFDESTRUCT.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations - 'many existing test cases for EIP-6780 can be addapted' Baseline EIP-6780 selfdestruct tests need reworked expectations.
  • supporting/eip-6780.md · Specification - 'if the target is the same as the contract calling SELFDESTRUCT that Ether will be burnt' The baseline expectation of a burn and of account deletion is reversed.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: No test suite was supplied. How widely tests outside the selfdestruct family depend on burn or deletion is estimated, not measured.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified2Several boundary-sensitive rules change: the self-beneficiary balance rule, and finalization that depends on whether the final balance is zero, together with the nonce reset that governs CREATE2 re-creation. Outcomes are mostly decided by the final balance, so the matrix is not clearly elevated.
  • eip.md · Specification - 'if the resulting balance is 0, the account is empty and is deleted' Whether the final balance is zero or nonzero decides between deletion and a surviving balance-only account.
  • eip.md · Specification item 1 - 'if the beneficiary address is the executing account address' Self-beneficiary versus other beneficiary changes the balance outcome.
  • eip.md · Motivation - 'via CALL or via SELFDESTRUCT, potentially multiple times' Multiple value arrivals after SELFDESTRUCT affect the final balance.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Dimensions such as reverted value transfers, repeated SELFDESTRUCTs and a pre-existing balance at the creation address could be argued to form an elevated matrix (level 3).
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified2Coordinated cases are needed with EIP-6780's same-transaction criterion and with EIP-161's deletion at finalization (zero versus nonzero final balance, and the touched condition).
  • eip.md · Specification item 4 - 'is deleted from the state by EIP-161' The outcome depends on EIP-161's empty-account deletion.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility - 'the behavior is unchanged from EIP-6780' The same-transaction rule versus the pre-existing-contract rule must be tested side by side.
  • supporting/eip-6780.md · Specification - 'A contract is considered created at the beginning of a create transaction' EIP-6780's definition of creation decides which path applies.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The coupling of EIP-6780, EIP-161 and CREATE2 behavior could be argued as level 3.
Interacting EIPs: EIP-6780, EIP-161
Security risks1The changed conditions are supply conservation, locked-balance accounts and whether CREATE2 redeployment is allowed at a surviving address. Each can be checked locally in state-transition tests.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations - 'dust-like accounts with potentially locked non-zero balance' New balance-only accounts can arise with locked funds.
  • eip.md · Motivation - 'removes the last EVM mechanism by which ETH can leave total supply' The ETH supply-conservation invariant changes.
  • eip.md · Rationale - 'Resetting the nonce to 0 ensures that a future CREATE2 at the same address is not blocked' A surviving account must not cause a CREATE2 address collision.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The effect on L2 systems that rely on the burn falls outside L1 EL testing.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified1Some details are left implicit: the account record is modified rather than recreated, the storage root is cleared, and deletion via EIP-161's touched rule follows. The supplied rules support one intended outcome.
  • eip.md · Test Cases - 'TBD' No reference vectors are provided.
  • eip.md · Specification items 2 and 4 The account is modified rather than deleted, and EIP-161 then deletes it if empty. The ordering relies on EIP-161's definition of 'at the end of the transaction'.
  • supporting/eip-161.md · Specification - 'immediately following the execution of the suicide list' Supports the order: selfdestruct processing first, then empty-account deletion.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: Interactions with other Amsterdam features, such as access lists or transfer logs, are not covered by the supplied documents. That is an evidence gap, not a proven omission.
Show 22 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No new instruction.
  • eip.md · Specification Only the existing SELFDESTRUCT is modified.
Added precompiles0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile content.
Modified precompiles0No precompile changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No precompile content.
Added system contracts0None introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is introduced.
Modified system contracts0No system contract rules or surrounding protocol behavior change.
  • eip.md · Specification No system contract is referenced.
EVM Gas rule changes0No execution-gas charging, metering or settlement rule changes.
  • eip.md · Specification - 'Note: all other behavior of SELFDESTRUCT is unchanged.' Only balance and finalization effects change; no gas rule is altered.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations - 'the new account creation cost is properly included in the transaction cost' The author states that existing charges already cover a surviving balance-only account.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
  • eip.md · Specification Only the outcome changes (balance kept, account modified instead of deleted). Access ordering is unchanged.
  • supporting/eip-6780.md · Specification - 'the rules of EIP-2929 regarding SELFDESTRUCT remain unchanged' Baseline access rules for SELFDESTRUCT stay as they are.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob-gas rules are touched.
  • eip.md · Specification No blob-related content.
State gas accounting changes0No state-gas accounting mechanism or parameter changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No state-gas cost or budget is defined.
New EVM gas refund0No refund mechanism is added.
  • eip.md · Specification No refund is introduced.
  • supporting/eip-6780.md · Specification - 'no refund is given since EIP-3529' SELFDESTRUCT still gives no refund.
New transaction types0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0Transaction eligibility rules are unchanged.
  • eip.md · Specification No transaction-validity or intrinsic-gas rule is changed.
New block / header fields0None.
  • eip.md · Specification No header field is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No schema or codec change.
  • eip.md · Specification Account records keep their existing fields. Only their values change.
Block syncing changes0These are execution-rule changes only.
  • eip.md · Specification No block decoding or structural validation rule changes.
New fork activation mechanism0Activation is only a fork-time rule selection.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility - 'This EIP requires a hard fork' The change is a rule switch with no one-time state migration.
Engine API changes0No Engine API field or endpoint changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No Engine API content.
Transition-tool interface changes0The existing alloc output already expresses the new post-state. No interface change is needed.
  • eip.md · Specification Only state-transition semantics change. No new inputs or outputs.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0Changes to existing expected values count as rework (PAT), not as a new assertion.
  • eip.md · Specification No new log, header, receipt field or commitment is introduced.
New test-framework primitives0The tests use existing primitives: contract creation, SELFDESTRUCT, value transfers and post-state account checks.
  • eip.md · Specification - 'nonce is reset to 0, balance is unchanged, code is cleared, all storage is cleared' Outcomes are ordinary account states that existing post-state expectations can express.
Uncertainty: A local helper for building the 'balance-only account' expectation could be convenient (level 1).
Performance risks0No changed resource bound or new workload is established.
  • eip.md · Specification Code and storage are cleared as before. The only difference is that the account record may persist with a balance.
Uncertainty: Clearing storage while keeping the account could have a different cost profile in some client databases. The supplied text gives no evidence of this.
Cryptography0No cryptographic mechanism changes.
  • eip.md · Specification No cryptographic content.
Assessment provenance
Assessed EIP revision
ethereum/EIPs@630c3420da EIPS/eip-8246.md committed 2026-05-06 · information cutoff 2026-05-06T12:59:06Z
Current master · File history · blob 1f0217997e · sha256 12452f4f467e
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/retrospective/outputs/assessments/amsterdam/eip-8246.yaml · sha256 718e653f0c17
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP
supporting/eip-161.md, supporting/eip-6780.md
Compare EIP-8246 with other assessmentsAll Amsterdam / Glamsterdam 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.