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 12
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. At the information cutoff, EIP-8246 proposed removing the remaining ETH-burn cases for SELFDESTRUCT executed by a contract created in the same transaction. It preserves the account balance while clearing nonce, code, and storage at transaction finalization, lets EIP-161 delete a resulting empty account, and leaves behavior outside the same-transaction creation case unchanged from EIP-6780. The proposal also resets nonce to zero so a later CREATE2 remains possible; it requires a hard fork and identifies a large combinatorial multi-call/create test surface, but its concrete test cases were still TBD.

12MediumMedium
Evaluator
LLMChecklist v2
Confidence
Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff
No
Plausible range
12–12 (Medium)
Assessment cutoff
2026-05-06 · EIP revision 630c3420da (2026-05-06)
Score bands · Checklist revision 2
  • Low <12
  • Medium 12–22
  • High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

  1. Modified opcodes3
  2. Edge/boundary conditions3
  3. Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2
  4. Security risks2

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No

The EIP text available at the assessment cutoff left material behavior unresolved. The affected criteria and the plausible total range record that uncertainty.

The assessor found no material behavior left unresolved by the EIP text at the cutoff.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8246 Amsterdam / Glamsterdam: LLM criterion scores and rationale
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Modified opcodes3At least one pre-existing opcode's non-gas behavior is modified, which maps directly to the rubric's fixed score-3 anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 SELFDESTRUCT with a same-transaction-created self-beneficiary now preserves balance, and marked-account finalization preserves balance instead of deleting the account while clearing nonce, code, and storage.
Confidence: High
Edge/boundary conditions3Multiple boundary-prone mechanisms combine multiplicatively, and the proposal itself calls out an elevated test-case count, satisfying score 3.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 22-23 Remaining burn cases distinguish same-transaction creation, self-beneficiary, and later funding via CALL or one or more SELFDESTRUCT operations.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 63-69 Outcomes branch on zero versus nonzero final balance, later CREATE2, and whether creation occurred in the same transaction.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, line 79 The proposal expressly characterizes multi-call/create interactions as combinatorial across a vast number of scenarios.
Confidence: High
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests2A considerable set of existing SELFDESTRUCT/EIP-6780 vectors must be reworked, but it remains a specialized opcode-and-creation category rather than a diverse major subset of the whole test corpus, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, line 79 The EIP identifies a combinatorial effect across many multi-call/create test scenarios, significant testing effort, and adaptation of many EIP-6780 tests.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 63-69 Existing expectations for burn, deletion, retained balance-only accounts, and follow-up CREATE2 change only in the same-transaction creation branch.
Confidence: High
Security risks2The change alters security-relevant balance and account-lifecycle assumptions across a limited cluster of SELFDESTRUCT, call/create, finalization, and CREATE2 behavior, warranting targeted review and fuzzing under score 2; it does not establish the broad critical-component impact required for score 3.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 79-80 The change combines with multi-call/create flows and can leave dust-like accounts holding locked nonzero balances when callers expected a burn.
  • eip.md · Rationale and Backwards Compatibility, lines 53-67 Finalization clears execution state, retains balance, resets nonce, and must preserve later CREATE2 reuse across zero- and nonzero-balance outcomes.
Confidence: Medium
Uncertainty: The proposal calls for significant testing but does not quantify a separate security-review or fuzzing program.
Cross-EIP interactions2Coordinated testing against two required EIPs is necessary for the baseline SELFDESTRUCT branch and final empty-account deletion, but the interactions are localized, matching score 2.
  • eip.md · Preamble and Specification, lines 1-11 and 46-47 EIP-8246 formally requires EIPs 161 and 6780, leaves the EIP-6780 baseline otherwise unchanged, and delegates zero-balance deletion to EIP-161.
  • supporting/eip-161.md · Specification, lines 24-36 EIP-161 defines end-of-transaction deletion and the empty-account predicate used by EIP-8246's resulting account state.
  • supporting/eip-6780.md · Specification, lines 26-48 EIP-6780 supplies the prior two-branch SELFDESTRUCT semantics that EIP-8246 selectively modifies.
Confidence: High
Interacting EIPs: EIP-161, EIP-6780
Show 23 zero-score criteria
Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
CriterionScoreWhy this scoreEvidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes0No opcode is added.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The proposal changes the existing SELFDESTRUCT opcode only.
Added precompiles0No precompile is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The complete normative scope changes SELFDESTRUCT and mentions no precompile.
Modified precompiles0No pre-existing precompile is modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The complete normative scope changes SELFDESTRUCT and mentions no precompile behavior or gas schedule.
Added system contracts0No system contract is added.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The EIP modifies an existing opcode and finalization behavior and introduces no contract address, bytecode, or system action.
Modified system contracts0No pre-existing system contract is modified directly or indirectly.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The specification identifies only SELFDESTRUCT account behavior and no existing system contract code, state, or indirect system-contract effect.
EVM Gas rule changes0No gas schedule, dynamic-cost rule, or charging mechanism is changed, so the proposal meets the zero anchor.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The normative changes address SELFDESTRUCT balance and finalization state, while explicitly leaving all other SELFDESTRUCT behavior unchanged.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, lines 79-80 The proposal says the applicable account-creation cost is already properly included rather than defining a new or adjusted gas charge.
State-access ordering within opcode execution0This is a result change, not a change to the order of state access and gas charging within an opcode; therefore the ordering anchor is not triggered.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The EIP changes the resulting balance and finalization state but specifies no relocation of state access or gas charging within SELFDESTRUCT execution.
Blob gas accounting changes0No blob gas accounting mechanism is added or modified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The complete normative change is confined to SELFDESTRUCT and account state at transaction finalization; it introduces no blob-gas rule.
State gas accounting changes0State contents change, but the rubric's separate state-gas accounting mechanisms do not; the zero anchor applies.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The EIP changes which account fields remain after finalization but defines no state-gas cost, rate, budget, reservoir, charging site, or spill rule.
New EVM gas refund0No new refund mechanism is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The specification enumerates balance preservation and field clearing and states that all other SELFDESTRUCT behavior is unchanged.
  • supporting/eip-6780.md · Specification, lines 37-46 The inherited same-transaction SELFDESTRUCT rules explicitly provide no gas refund, and EIP-8246 does not alter that rule.
New transaction types0No transaction type is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The proposal applies during ordinary transaction execution and finalization and defines no transaction envelope or new transaction type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms0No transaction acceptance rule or intrinsic-gas validity mechanism changes.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 61-69 The hard-fork change alters successful execution post-state and CREATE2 reuse, not transaction validity or intrinsic gas calculation.
New block / header fields0No block or header field is introduced.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The specification changes opcode and finalization behavior without adding a block or header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)0No RLP, SSZ, or other interface-level encoding changes are specified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The account-state semantic change introduces no transaction, block, or interface encoding.
Block syncing changes0No block serialization or syncing validation mechanism changes.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The normative changes affect execution and transaction-finalization state and add no block RLP validation rule.
New fork activation mechanism0Ordinary fork-gated semantics do not constitute the rubric's activation-block state or internal-variable mechanism.
  • eip.md · Backwards Compatibility, lines 59-65 A hard fork switches the execution rule, but the proposal specifies no one-time state mutation or internal-variable modification at the activation block.
Engine API changes0No Engine API change is specified.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 SELFDESTRUCT semantics change without any Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism being introduced.
Transition-tool interface changes0No transition-tool interface field or mechanism is required.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The behavior is derived from ordinary transaction execution and finalization, with no new input, output, or fork-activation-block datum specified.
New invariant on pre-existing tests0The affected tests change expected results; tests not about this EIP do not gain a new mechanically applied invariant.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, line 79 Existing EIP-6780 cases are described as needing adaptation to changed behavior, not as unrelated tests gaining an additional universal assertion.
New test-framework primitives0Existing transaction, call/create, opcode, and post-state test primitives suffice; only new or adapted cases are called for.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, line 79 The proposal says many existing EIP-6780 test cases can be adapted, providing no indication that new framework-level expectations or modifiers are needed.
Uncertainty: Concrete test cases are TBD, but the specified behavior exposes no need for a new framework abstraction.
Performance risks0The package identifies no new mechanism requiring performance validation; the change simplifies a rare existing finalization path, so score 0 is best supported.
  • eip.md · Motivation, lines 20-25 The proposal removes a nearly unused special case to simplify EVM handling and says the affected path is rarer than the already changed EIP-6780 path.
  • eip.md · Security Considerations, line 80 Balance-only dust accounts are possible, but the applicable creation cost is already included and the text reports the triggering behavior as very rare.
Uncertainty: The text does not supply benchmarks, but it also does not identify a material performance-sensitive mechanism.
Cryptography0No cryptography mechanism is introduced or changed.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The changes concern SELFDESTRUCT balances and account-field clearing and do not introduce or modify a cryptographic operation.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus0Together the proposal and its required baseline determine constructible outcomes; missing concrete tests do not create a normative cross-client choice.
  • eip.md · Specification, lines 31-47 The proposal specifies the changed self-beneficiary balance, every retained account field at finalization, empty-account deletion, and that all remaining SELFDESTRUCT behavior is unchanged.
  • supporting/eip-6780.md · Specification, lines 26-50 The inherited baseline distinguishes same-transaction creation, defines its balance/deletion semantics, and defines what counts as contract creation.
Uncertainty: Test cases are TBD, but no material behavioral gap requiring client agreement is apparent in the sealed text.
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 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/05-retrospective-complexity-assignment/outputs/fork-eips/amsterdam/eip-8246.yaml · sha256 943791c0969b
Supporting documents in the sealed package
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 · 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 · 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.

  • 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 · 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.