EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8253: Bump nonce of zero-nonce storage accounts

Assessed in Hegotá. The score describes the EIP text available at the snapshot, not the EIP as it stands today.

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-08-25PFI at snapshotLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 20

Human Pending· No STEEL checklist existed on the ethspecs/pm default branch or in any open pull request at the snapshot.

LLM assessment

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

Scope at the cutoff. Draft execution-layer EIP-8253 in the sealed Hegotá snapshot. It specifies a one-time fork-activation transition that sets the nonce to 1 for a fixed Mainnet list of 28 zero-nonce, empty-code, non-empty-storage accounts, preserves all other account fields, runs before system calls and transactions, consumes no gas, and conditionally records the changes in an EIP-7928 block-level access list. The referenced account-list and methodology assets are not present in the assessment package.

20MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 2 criteria affected
Plausible range: 19–21 (Medium)
Snapshot: 2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)

Score bands · Checklist revision 2

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

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 fixed Mainnet account list and the methodology that normatively constructs and verifies it are referenced but absent from the sealed assessment sources. Consequently, the exact transition inputs, byte-equality check, and reproducible list verification cannot be assessed or turned into exact vectors package-locally.

Plausible total

19–21
recorded score 20 · plausible tiers Medium

Affected criteria (2)

Security risks (2)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (3)

What are the exact 28 address entries and hashes in the normative Mainnet list?
What complete procedure and fork-state inputs determine byte-equality for that list?
How are non-Mainnet lists finalized and independently verified for their activation state?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (2)

The EIP names a designated fork block but does not provide its block number, timestamp, or an explicit transition-tool activation signal.
The EIP requires byte equality with the methodology output while the methodology and target-list assets are outside the sealed evidence set.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8253 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactionsExceptional	4	Eight numbered EIPs require coordinated consideration: 161 and 684 define the historical and active creation invariants; 7610 is the alternative collision rule; 2935, 4788, 7002, and 7251 create four separate activation-order cases; and 7928 adds a conditional BAL and replay case. This exceeds the first three interacting EIPs by five, yielding one uncapped +1 increment. Exceptional score: A score above 3 is justified by eight package-explicit interactions, each with its own dependency, alternative-rule, activation-order, or BAL-coordination surface; under the rubric, EIPs four through six add one point beyond the score-3 multiple-EIP anchor.	eip.md · Front matter requires; Abstract; Motivation EIP-8253 depends on EIPs 161 and 684 and is offered as an alternative to the runtime storage check of EIP-7610. eip.md · Specification > State transition Activation must precede pre-execution system calls introduced by EIPs 2935, 4788, 7002, and 7251. eip.md · Specification > Interaction with EIP-7928 When EIP-7928 is active, every nonce bump must be encoded at access index 0 and replay must reproduce the post-state root. Confidence: High Uncertainty: EIP-7523 is cited only as design precedent and is excluded because the proposal does not depend on, modify, or conflict with it. Interacting EIPs: EIP-161, EIP-684, EIP-2935, EIP-4788, EIP-7002, EIP-7251, EIP-7610, EIP-7928
New fork activation mechanism	3	The EIP performs a consensus state modification at the activation block, which directly meets the binary score-3 anchor.	eip.md · Specification > State transition At the start of the designated fork block, each listed account's nonce must be set to 1. eip.md · Abstract The proposal explicitly characterizes the change as an irregular state transition. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The exact designated fork identifier is not supplied, but the activation-only state mutation is unambiguous.
Edge/boundary conditions	3	Multiple boundaries require coverage: activation versus adjacent blocks, listed versus unlisted accounts, the three account-shape exclusions, CREATE/CREATE2/CALL outcomes, EIP-7928 active versus inactive, and ordering before four named pre-execution system-call mechanisms. The fixed 28-account batch and conditional BAL path elevate the case count.	eip.md · Test Cases Required cases distinguish targeted and non-targeted account shapes, CREATE and CREATE2 collision, CALL behavior, and conditional BAL correctness. eip.md · Specification > State transition; Interaction with EIP-7928 The transition has an exact activation boundary before system calls and transactions, plus index-0 BAL ordering when EIP-7928 is active. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Exact per-account vectors cannot be enumerated because the referenced list is not included in the package, but the multiplicity of specified boundaries is clear.
Transition-tool interface changes	2	Transition tooling needs a fork-activation-only mechanism, including the applicable chain list, rather than merely processing ordinary per-block input. This is a new interface-level activation mechanism, even though the EIP does not prescribe multiple fields.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The mutation applies only at the start of the designated fork block. eip.md · Specification > Mainnet account list The transition consumes a fixed chain-specific account list with 28 Mainnet entries. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The EIP does not define the transition-tool interface or how the account list is supplied, so an implementation might encode activation and the list in fork configuration rather than add an explicit input field.
Security risksUnder-specified	2	The new mechanism touches a limited set of state accounts but changes a security-relevant creation invariant. A wrong list can either leave collision risk or mutate an unintended account, requiring targeted multi-client review and verification.	eip.md · Security Considerations > List correctness Both omissions and spurious entries are consensus-relevant, and multi-client plus external list verification is required before scheduling. eip.md · Abstract; Backwards Compatibility The nonce bump protects stored state from future CREATE or CREATE2 collision by relying on EIP-684 rejection. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The referenced list and methodology are absent, so their reproducibility and validation complexity cannot be assessed from the package.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	The transition rule is clear once an account list is fixed, but the sealed proposal evidence does not determine the exact accounts or the complete construction procedure. That localized input must be agreed and baselined before exact state-root and per-account vectors can be written.	eip.md · Specification > Mainnet account list The normative 28-entry target set and its construction are delegated to referenced assets not present in the package. eip.md · Specification > Application to non-Mainnet chains; Reference Implementation Other chains must generate their own lists, while the published list must be byte-equal to a methodology output at the fork-block state. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: This scores the package-visible specification gap, not an assumption about implementations, devnets, or discussion status, which are prohibited evidence.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	A narrow subset of existing fork-transition or creation-collision vectors that include a targeted account must update expected post-state behavior; unrelated tests and non-targeted accounts are unchanged.	eip.md · Specification > State transition At activation, every listed account acquires nonce 1 while its other fields remain unchanged. eip.md · Test Cases > Nonce bump; Non-targeted accounts unaffected Tests must distinguish listed accounts from accounts outside the fixed list. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package contains no inventory of pre-existing tests, so the affected subset is inferred only from the narrowly scoped state predicate and fixed list.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	1	Existing tests that cross activation with a targeted account gain a narrow additional post-state invariant for the nonce and preservation of other fields.	eip.md · Test Cases > Nonce bump A targeted account must have nonce 1 after the fork while balance, code, and storage remain unchanged. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The sealed evidence does not establish whether any non-EIP-specific test already contains a targeted account at activation.
New test-framework primitives	1	Existing state and call expectations appear sufficient, but the framework needs a minor activation-context extension or helper to apply and inspect a one-time pre-execution transition.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The change is an activation-block-only transition before normal block execution. eip.md · Test Cases Coverage spans nonce preservation, creation collision, calls, non-targeted accounts, and conditional BAL output. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package provides no test-framework description, so it is unclear whether an existing fork-transition primitive already suffices without extension.
Performance risks	1	The bounded activation batch and state-root update warrant isolated validation, but the work is fixed and does not alter ongoing execution performance.	eip.md · Rationale > Irregular state transition vs. runtime check; Nonce bump vs. storage clear The design replaces a perpetual runtime storage check with 28 one-time scalar nonce writes, avoiding the 129 storage-entry clearing alternative. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The missing account asset prevents package-local measurement, though the EIP states the batch size is 28.

Show 18 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is added.	eip.md · Abstract The proposal relies on existing CREATE and CREATE2 behavior under EIP-684. Uncertainty: No opcode addition appears in the sealed text.
Modified opcodes	The EIP changes pre-execution state, not opcode semantics. Different creation outcomes for targeted addresses follow from the existing nonce-collision rule.	eip.md · Abstract; Backwards Compatibility CREATE and CREATE2 observe the newly nonzero nonce and reject under the unchanged EIP-684 rule. supporting/eip-684.md · Specification EIP-684 already rejects creation at a destination with a nonzero nonce. Uncertainty: The proposal explicitly frames EIP-684 as the unchanged rejection mechanism.
Added precompiles	No precompile is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The only new operation is a direct account-nonce state transition. Uncertainty: No precompile surface is present.
Modified precompiles	No precompile logic or gas schedule is modified.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The transition changes only listed account nonces and preserves their other fields. Uncertainty: No precompile interaction is specified.
Added system contracts	No system contract is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The change directly updates listed accounts before any existing system-contract calls. Uncertainty: The targeted accounts are state-transition inputs, not a newly deployed system contract.
Modified system contracts	The proposal establishes sequencing relative to existing system contracts but changes neither their code nor their state or behavior.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The nonce bumps are ordered before, but do not modify, the system calls introduced by EIPs 2935, 4788, 7002, and 7251. Uncertainty: The package does not identify any targeted address as a system-contract address; no indirect behavioral effect is specified.
EVM Gas rule changes	The EIP introduces no EVM gas-accounting rule; its nonce writes are an irregular, gas-free activation transition.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The activation transition consumes no gas and produces no transaction. Uncertainty: No gas-accounting ambiguity is visible in the sealed text.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No opcode's internal state-access or gas-charge ordering changes. The state is mutated before opcode execution, after which existing creation logic observes the new nonce.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The nonce writes occur at block start, before system calls and transactions. eip.md · Abstract Future creation is rejected by the existing EIP-684 nonce precondition. Uncertainty: The proposal specifies block-level ordering, not an opcode-level ordering change.
Blob gas accounting changes	The proposal does not mention or modify blob gas accounting.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The only prescribed mutation is setting targeted account nonces to 1 without gas. Uncertainty: No blob-gas surface is present in the sealed proposal.
State gas accounting changes	The EIP neither adjusts a state-gas rate nor adds a state-gas charging site; the one-time state write is unmetered.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The nonce transition explicitly consumes no gas. Uncertainty: No state-gas budget, rate, reservoir, or spill rule is specified.
New EVM gas refund	No gas-refund mechanism is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The transition consumes no gas and produces no transaction or receipt. Uncertainty: No refund behavior is present in the sealed proposal.
New transaction types	No transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The transition produces no transaction, receipt, or log. Uncertainty: The state mutation is explicitly outside transaction processing.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No transaction validity rule or intrinsic-gas calculation changes. A creation transaction can execute and revert because of existing collision semantics, which is not a new transaction-validity mechanism.	eip.md · Specification > State transition; Test Cases > CREATE reverts The activation changes state before transactions; a later creation attempt reverts during execution under EIP-684. Uncertainty: The proposal specifies execution outcome, not transaction admission validity.
New block / header fields	No block or header field is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The nonce bumps affect the post-state root but no new block or header field is defined. Uncertainty: A changed value for the existing state root is not a new header field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	The proposal supplies values to an already specified BAL encoding and does not change transaction, block, or interface encoding.	eip.md · Specification > Interaction with EIP-7928 EIP-8253 populates existing AccountChanges and NonceChange fields when EIP-7928 is active. supporting/eip-7928.md · Specification > RLP Data Structures The BAL RLP structure already includes nonce_changes. Uncertainty: Updating an account's nonce changes encoded state data, not an encoding format covered by this anchor.
Block syncing changes	No block-RLP validation mechanism is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > State transition The proposal mutates account nonce state and introduces no block RLP rule. Uncertainty: State-root changes alone do not constitute the block-RLP mechanism scored by this anchor.
Engine API changes	EIP-8253 changes the contents of an existing conditional BAL mechanism; it adds no Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism of its own.	eip.md · Specification > Interaction with EIP-7928 The EIP specifies BAL content when EIP-7928 is active but no new Engine API field or method. supporting/eip-7928.md · Specification > Engine API EIP-7928 already defines the payload field and Engine API methods that carry BALs. Uncertainty: No EIP-8253-specific Engine API change is specified.
Cryptography	No new or modified cryptographic mechanism is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Mainnet account list Keccak hashes accompany addresses and slots as verification information, not as a new cryptographic mechanism. Uncertainty: The proposal uses existing hashes only as list provenance and BAL-related data.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8253.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 1c8c02121c · sha256 4a26740655d1
Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/08-hegota-prospective-complexity-assessment/outputs/assessments/hegota-pfi-2026-08-26/eip-8253.yaml · sha256 4f7d3be5b622
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-161.md, supporting/eip-684.md, supporting/eip-2935.md, supporting/eip-4788.md, supporting/eip-7002.md, supporting/eip-7251.md, supporting/eip-7523.md, supporting/eip-7610.md, supporting/eip-7928.md

Compare EIP-8253 with other assessments All Hegotá assessments

Criterion legend and glossary

Every stacked bar, comparison matrix, and criterion table on this site uses the same criterion colours, abbreviations, and order. Colour marks the criterion group; the abbreviation and name identify the criterion. Scores are 0–3 per criterion (4 is exceptional; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped).

EVM surface

Opcodes, precompiles, and system contracts that are added or modified.

OP+
Added opcodes
Introduces new opcodes
Score anchors
0
No new opcodes are introduced.
1
A new simple opcode is introduced (no data portion, no complex stack mechanics, and a constant gas cost).
2
Multiple new simple opcodes are introduced, or a single new complex opcode is introduced (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
3
Multiple new opcodes are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
- Cryptography opcodes are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" section for a separate assessment.
Modified opcodes
Modifies pre-existing opcodes
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing opcode modifications are introduced.
3
At least one pre-existing opcode's behavior is modified (not including gas changes) or a pre-existing opcode is deprecated.
PC+
Added precompiles
Introduces new precompiles
Score anchors
0
No new precompiles are introduced.
1
A new simple precompile is introduced (constant input length, constant gas cost).
2
Multiple new simple precompiles are introduced, or a single new complex precompile is introduced (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
3
Multiple new precompiles are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
- Cryptography precompiles are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" for a separate assessment.
Modified precompiles
Modifies pre-existing precompiles logic or gas-accounting
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing precompiles are modified.
1
At least one pre-existing precompile has its gas schedule modified.
2
Multiple pre-existing precompiles have their gas schedule modified, or a single pre-existing precompile has its behavior modified.
3
The behavior of multiple pre-existing precompiles, or a single complex pre-existing precompile modified.
Added system contracts
Introduces new system contract, stateful or not
Score anchors
0
No new system contracts are introduced.
1
A new system contract is introduced that is not stateful nor does it trigger a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
2
Multiple new system contracts are introduced or a single new system contract that is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
3
Multiple new system contracts are introduced and at least one of them is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
Modified system contracts
Modifies pre-existing system contracts
Score anchors
0
No modifications to pre-existing system contracts are introduced, directly or indirectly.
1
Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has minor indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
2
Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has major indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
3
At least one pre-existing system contract code or state is modified, which would involve irregular state transition or a similarly complex transition methodology.

Gas and accounting

Execution, blob, and state gas rules, refunds, and where charges happen inside opcodes.

EVM Gas rule changes
New EVM gas accounting rules
Score anchors
0
No gas accounting changes.
1
Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated.
2
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
3
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
ORD
State-access ordering within opcode execution · Checklist revision 2 only
Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
Score anchors
0
No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
1
A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
2
Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
3
The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
- Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
- Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
- Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
Blob gas accounting changes
New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
Score anchors
0
No blob gas accounting changes.
1
Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
2
A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
3
A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
SGAS
State gas accounting changes · Checklist revision 2 only
New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
Score anchors
0
No state gas accounting changes.
1
An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
2
A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
3
A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
- Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
New EVM gas refund
New gas-refund mechanism
Score anchors
0
No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
1
A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
2
A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
3
A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.

New transaction types
Introduces a new transaction type
Score anchors
0
No new transaction types are introduced.
3
A new transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms
Creates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
Score anchors
0
No changes are introduced to the validity rules of existing transaction types or to their intrinsic gas cost calculation.
1
Minor adjustments are introduced to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation, but they do not significantly affect existing tests.
2
Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation affect existing tests, but require only limited updates to test cases and no redesign of the testing infrastructure.
3
Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation require extensive rework or redesign of the tests or testing infrastructure.
New block / header fields
Introduces new block or block header fields
Score anchors
0
No new block or header fields are introduced.
3
A new block or header field is introduced.
ENC
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
Score anchors
0
No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
3
An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
- "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
Block syncing changes
Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
Score anchors
0
No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
1
A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
2
Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
3
Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
ACT
New fork activation mechanism
Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
Score anchors
0
No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
3
Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
- Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

Engine API changes
Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
Score anchors
0
No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
1
A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
2
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
3
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
T8N
Transition-tool interface changes
Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
Score anchors
0
No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
1
A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
2
Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
3
Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
- Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
1
Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
2
Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
3
Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
INV
New invariant on pre-existing tests · Checklist revision 2 only
Tests that are **not about this EIP** must nonetheless assert something this EIP produces. Their logic does not change; they gain a new thing to check.
Score anchors
0
Pre-existing tests assert nothing new.
1
A narrow, contrived category of pre-existing tests gains a new assertion.
2
A broad category gains a new assertion, applied mechanically.
3
Every test in the fork gains the assertion regardless of what it tests, and pre-fork vectors must be re-derived to satisfy it.
- Paired with the row above, and easy to confuse with it. "Patterns affecting pre-existing tests" asks whether existing tests must be **reworked**; this row asks whether they must **additionally assert something new**. Score both — an EIP can be low on one and high on the other.
New test-framework primitives · Checklist revision 2 only
Requires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
Score anchors
0
Existing test primitives suffice.
1
Existing primitives need minor extension.
2
New expectation or modifier primitives are required, reusable within this EIP's own test suite.
3
New framework-level primitives are required that become a permanent part of the framework and are used by other EIPs' tests.

Risk and validation

Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.

Security risks
Introduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
Score anchors
0
No new mechanisms are introduced that could pose a security risk.
1
The introduced mechanisms are self-contained, can be validated in isolation, and do not alter existing invariants that could pose a security risk for any stakeholders.
2
The introduced mechanisms interact with a limited number of existing components, slightly altering their security assumptions and requiring a targeted security review or fuzzing.
3
The introduced mechanisms interact with multiple existing components, including critical ones, substantially altering their security assumptions and requiring an extensive security review and fuzzing.
Performance risks
Introduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
Score anchors
0
No new mechanisms are introduced that require performance validation.
1
The introduced mechanisms can be benchmarked in isolation and do not affect existing performance behavior.
2
The introduced mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, but they only have a limited impact on the existing performance benchmarks.
3
The introduced mechanisms cannot be benchmarked in isolation and have a substantial impact on existing performance benchmarks or have complex interactions with existing mechanisms.
Edge/boundary conditions
Feature contains edge/boundary conditions.
Score anchors
0
No discernible edge cases or boundary conditions are introduced.
1
A single edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanism is introduced.
2
Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced, but none of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
3
Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
Cryptography
Introduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
Score anchors
0
No cryptography mechanisms are introduced.
1
A new cryptography mechanism is introduced but it is a well known mechanism that is known to have vast resources to aid on its testing.
2
Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced that are well-known or a single but novel mechanism is introduced that is either untested or has limited resources.
3
Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is a novel mechanism.

Coordination

Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.

XEIP
Cross-EIP interactions
Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
Score anchors
0
Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
1
The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
2
The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
3
The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
- +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
- This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
UNSP
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · Checklist revision 2 only
The EIP text does not determine the answer for cases a test can construct. Clients must agree on a previously unspecified detail before tests can be baselined. The cost here is coordination and re-baselining, not test writing.
Score anchors
0
The EIP text determines the answer for every case a test could construct.
1
A few details are unspecified but have an obvious intended reading.
2
Details require client agreement before tests can be written, but they are localized.
3
A previously unspecified *and previously unobservable* behavior becomes consensus-critical; expect tests to be re-baselined on each round of EIP amendment.
- Score this from the EIP's state at assessment time: whether it has client implementations, whether it has been through a devnet, and how many open questions remain on its discussion thread.