EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8272: Recent Roots for Frame Transactions

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

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-10-07EIP-8081: CFILayers: execution

LLM Completescore 24

Human Available in open PRscore 14 · Checklist revision 2· ethspecs/pm #133

LLM · Checklist revision 32026-10-08 · Opus 5.5 · snapshot · 24 Human · Checklist revision 2Available in open PR · 14 CompareHuman vs LLM · shared criteria

Evaluated on: 2026-10-08 · Spec revision: 2026-10-07 · 6dac5e7491 · EIP-8081 list: CFI

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-8272 sets up a stateful recent root contract at RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS (0x…8272), installed by the protocol at activation. Root sources write domain-separated keccak entry hashes into an 8192-slot ring buffer keyed by (source_id, slot) using 64-byte calldata. The same contract checks 1–16 packed 72-byte (source_id, slot, root) tuples against storage and the EIP-7843 SLOTNUM within an 8191-slot window. A canonical EIP-8141 VERIFY frame, `recent_root_verify`, calls this check before account validation, so a failed check invalidates the frame transaction. The EIP-8141 public mempool policy is extended with: a fixed frame position, a SLOTNUM/SLOAD exception, MAX_VERIFY_GAS accounting, dependency indexing, and eviction on age, slot advance, reorg and code change. There is no new opcode, transaction envelope, header field or gas mechanism.

24HighHigh

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v3
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range: 22–27 (Medium–High)
Snapshot: 2026-10-07 · EIP revision 6dac5e7491 (2026-10-07)

Score bands · Checklist revision 3

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

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: RECENT_ROOT_CODE is TBD, so the gas used by write and validation calls, the order of checks and short-circuiting, and revert-vs-halt behavior cannot be fixed. The failure mode of a static-context write is unspecified. It is unclear whether the activation install runs when genesis is already in the fork, and how a transition tool detects the first active block.

Plausible total

22–27
recorded score 24 · plausible tiers Medium, High

Affected criteria (5)

Block syncing changes (2)
Transition-tool interface changes (0)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (1)
New invariant on pre-existing tests (1)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)

What is the exact RECENT_ROOT_CODE bytecode, and therefore the gas used by write and validation calls?
Does the validation operation stop at the first failing tuple, and in what order does it check the window and SLOAD (this affects warm sets and gas used)?
Does a write in static context revert or halt exceptionally?
If genesis is already in the fork, does the activation install run in block 1, or must the contract be in genesis allocation?
How does a transition tool learn that a block is the first active block?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (5)

RECENT_ROOT_CODE is TBD, but the EIP requires direct evaluation to match EVM gas use and warm sets exactly.
A static-context write "MUST fail" without saying whether it reverts or halts exceptionally.
The activation trigger is unclear for chains or tests whose genesis is already in the fork.
Mempool current_slot (header slotNumber + 1) can differ from the payload slot, so builder revalidation is required; the expected eviction behavior for skipped slots is only partly specified.
The admission margin for references close to expiry is left to the node, so expiry-near admission results are not deterministic across clients.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8272 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
New fork activation mechanism	3	Activation installs code at a new or existing empty account: nonce max(n,1), balance preserved, invalid if code or storage is present. This differs from ordinary post-fork processing. Level 3.	eip.md · Activation — "clients MUST initialize RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS against the parent state before executing any transaction" One-time protocol-mandated code installation. eip.md · Activation — "set its nonce to max(existing_nonce, 1), preserve its balance" Conditional handling of an existing account. eip.md · Activation — "Clients MUST handle reorganizations across activation" Reorgs across activation must apply or undo the transition. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Behavior when genesis is already in the fork is not stated.
Edge/boundary conditions	3	There are several independent boundary-sensitive mechanisms: the age window and ring index, calldata length and tuple count, the MAX_VERIFY_GAS budget, the execution limit, and the activation-state conditions. The frame-position rule is an elevated matrix: four prefix shapes × expiry_verify presence × recent_root_verify presence × order and duplication, where combinations change acceptance. Separately, the current_slot definition (mempool header+1 vs payload slotNumber) interacts with the age window. Level 3.	eip.md · Validation operation — "slot < current_slot" / "current_slot - slot <= RECENT_ROOT_USABLE_WINDOW" Age-window boundary: 8191 accepted, 8192 rejected, current or future slot rejected. eip.md · Validation operation — "1 <= n <= MAX_RECENT_ROOT_REFERENCES" Calldata-length boundaries: 64-byte write, 71/72/73 bytes, 16 vs 17 tuples. eip.md · Test Cases — "Signature verification cost plus all validation prefix execution limits ... equals MAX_VERIFY_GAS" / "exceeds ... by one" Verify-gas budget boundary and the one-gas-short execution limit. eip.md · Test Cases — "Each of EIP-8141's four recognized validation prefix shapes must be tested with no protocol verifier, with recent_root_verify, with expiry_verify, and with expiry_verify followed by recent_root_verify." Elevated matrix of prefix shape × verifier presence × order. Confidence: High
Cross-EIP interactions	3	The target couples EIP-8141 (frame modes, flags, STATICCALL VERIFY, frame-entry cold charge, prefix matching, MAX_VERIFY_GAS, introspection, revalidation) with EIP-7843 (SLOTNUM as current_slot, mempool header+1 slot, payload slot revalidation). This requires coordinated scenarios across both, plus EIP-7702 storage-context checks. Level 3.	eip.md · Public mempool handling — "[expiry_verify?] [recent_root_verify?] [deploy?] [account validation]" Couples with EIP-8141 prefix shapes, expiry verifier and MAX_VERIFY_GAS. eip.md · Current slot — "The simulated SLOTNUM value MUST equal this slot" / "revalidate it with SLOTNUM set to that payload's slotNumber" Couples with EIP-7843 slotNumber in mempool and in block building. eip.md · Application introspection Account validation reads the verifier frame via EIP-8141 FRAMEPARAM/FRAMEDATALOAD. eip.md · Write operation — "EIP-7702 delegated code uses the delegating account's storage context" Write-context interaction with EIP-7702. Confidence: Medium Interacting EIPs: EIP-8141, EIP-7843, EIP-7702
Added system contracts	2	Exactly one stateful system contract is introduced. Level 2.	eip.md · Constants — "RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000008272" / "RECENT_ROOT_CODE TBD" One protocol-designated contract address; code TBD. eip.md · Write operation — "storage[storage_key] = entry_hash" The contract keeps persistent ring-buffer storage. Confidence: High
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	The VERIFY invalidation rule is inherited, but the protocol-installed contract adds a new consensus validity dependency on recent-root storage, SLOTNUM and the window. This needs dedicated multi-block cases: write in slot S then reference at S+1, a same-slot reference, ages 8191 and 8192, overwrite within a slot, and a reorg-removed root. Baseline EIP-8141 test construction remains usable. Level 2.	eip.md · Recent root verifier frame — "If the contract reverts or the frame halts exceptionally, EIP-8141 makes the transaction invalid." Block inclusion now depends on recent-root storage and the slot window. eip.md · Current slot — "References MUST target slots strictly before current_slot. A root written during slot S becomes referenceable beginning in slot S + 1." Validity depends on writes across blocks and on the payload slotNumber. supporting/eip-8141.md · Behavior — "If the frame fails by reverting or halting exceptionally, the transaction is invalid." The baseline VERIFY invalidation rule. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Could be read as an application-level revert under an unchanged VERIFY rule (level 1). However, the contract is protocol-mandated and bound to slot semantics.
Block syncing changesUnder-specified	2	One complex block-validity rule, tested through block import: the first active block is invalid if RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS has nonempty code or storage in the parent state. It depends on state, so it is complex. No RLP decoding changes. Level 2.	eip.md · Activation — "If this condition is false, the first active block is invalid." A new block-validity rule that depends on parent state at activation. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: This is a state-dependent rule rather than a structural one. It could be treated as an activation/execution matter only, which would give 0.
Security risks	2	Relaxing the mempool's no-shared-mutable-state invariant changes security assumptions between mempool admission/eviction, block-builder revalidation and the contract. Needed adversarial cases: mass invalidation via reorg or expiry, same-slot overwrite, and the gap between mempool slot and payload slot. Write-context isolation (static, DELEGATECALL, 7702) also needs checking. This is a bounded interaction rather than a change across many components. Level 2.	eip.md · Rationale — "EIP-8141 public mempool validation normally rejects reads from shared mutable storage. Recent root storage is a narrow exception" Relaxes the EIP-8141 mempool isolation invariant. supporting/eip-8141.md · Mempool — "avoid allowing an arbitrary number of transactions to be invalidated by a single environmental change" The baseline invariant that is being relaxed. eip.md · Write operation — "DELEGATECALL and CALLCODE use the invoking account's storage context, while EIP-7702 delegated code uses the delegating account's storage context" Storage-context boundary for writes. eip.md · Security Considerations — "Validation logic that does not authorize the canonical signature hash must bind the recent root verifier frame" Application binding responsibilities. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Could reach 3 if the mempool DoS invariant change is treated as a shared trust invariant across mempool, builder and applications.
Performance risks	2	Needs targeted integrated benchmarks of mempool dependency indexing and revalidation under reorgs and synchronized expiry of popular roots, and of 16-SLOAD validation inside the MAX_VERIFY_GAS budget. This is a bounded interaction between mempool and state. Level 2.	eip.md · Security Considerations — "A reorganization or synchronized expiry may evict many transactions that use one popular root" Mass eviction workload in the mempool. eip.md · Public mempool handling — "Clients SHOULD index pending transactions by these values" New dependency-indexing workload when slots advance or reorgs occur. eip.md · Test Cases — "Sixteen valid tuples with distinct cold storage keys" Up to 16 cold SLOADs per frame within MAX_VERIFY_GAS. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Unbounded growth in the number of source_ids is priced by ordinary state growth; whether that needs separate benchmarking is not established.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Several consensus-visible outcomes cannot be fixed yet: gas used by write and validation calls, short-circuit order on failing tuples (which affects warm sets and gas), the failure mode for static-context writes, and the install trigger when genesis is in the fork. These are localized competing outcomes that need specification agreement. Level 2.	eip.md · Constants — "RECENT_ROOT_CODE \| TBD" Bytecode is unspecified, so gas use, check order and revert vs halt are not fixed. eip.md · Write operation — "In static context, the write MUST fail" Does not say whether failure is a revert or an exceptional halt; gas outcomes differ. eip.md · Activation — "For the first block in which this EIP is active" Unclear whether this applies when genesis is already in the fork. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Once RECENT_ROOT_CODE is published, most of these resolve.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	1	Rework is limited to particular cases in the EIP-8141 public mempool prefix-shape family. A VERIFY frame with flags 0 targeting 0x…8272 before account validation used to be rejected and may now be accepted, and the deploy-first check now applies after skipping. Baseline execution tests are otherwise unaffected. Level 1.	eip.md · Public mempool handling — "clients MUST skip both optional leading protocol verifier frames. The EIP-8141 rule that deploy is first applies after these frames are skipped." Changes EIP-8141 prefix-shape matching and where the deploy-first rule applies. supporting/eip-8141.md · Expiry Verifier Frame (Mempool) — "expiry verifier frame is skipped" The baseline skip rule covered only expiry_verify. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "Calls to that address change behavior after activation" The behavior of RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS changes. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: If tests whose genesis is already in the fork must run the activation install in block 1, many blockchain-test post-states would change.
New invariant on pre-existing testsUnder-specified	1	Fork-transition tests must also assert the newly installed account (code, nonce 1, preserved balance, empty storage) in the first active block. Only that restricted family needs the assertion. Level 1.	eip.md · Activation — "clients MUST create it with balance 0, nonce 1, code RECENT_ROOT_CODE, and empty storage" Protocol-mandated account creation in the first active block. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The text does not say whether the install applies when genesis is already in the fork. If it does, many more tests would be affected.
New test-framework primitives	1	Needs local extensions to existing kinds of primitive: tuple and frame builders, an entry-hash/storage-key pre-state helper, and mempool eviction expectations for slot advance and reorg on top of the EIP-8141 mempool revalidation harness. No new shared abstraction is architecturally required. Level 1.	eip.md · Public mempool handling — "On admission, clients MUST record each distinct (storage_key, entry_hash) dependency" Mempool dependency tracking, age-based eviction and reorg eviction. eip.md · Entry and storage keys Tests need helpers that compute entry hashes and storage keys to pre-populate state. supporting/eip-8141.md · Revalidation The prerequisite already needs mempool revalidation on new heads. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: If the EIP-8141 baseline has no mempool/reorg harness that can be driven from tests, the eviction and reorg cases would need a new expectation abstraction (level 2).

Show 16 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No new instruction. Level 0.	eip.md · Abstract — "no new opcode" Explicitly states that no opcode is added.
Modified opcodes	Instruction semantics are unchanged. The SLOTNUM/SLOAD permissions are public-mempool policy only. Level 0.	eip.md · Application introspection — "This EIP adds no transaction parameter or opcode." FRAMEPARAM and the other introspection opcodes are used unchanged. eip.md · Public mempool handling — "SLOTNUM MAY execute inside RECENT_ROOT_CODE" Mempool permission only; SLOTNUM semantics are unchanged.
Added precompiles	No precompile is introduced. Level 0.	eip.md · Recent root contract An EVM contract, not a precompile.
Modified precompiles	Level 0.	eip.md · Specification No precompile is referenced or changed.
Modified system contracts	No existing protocol-designated contract changes its rules, code or layout. The expiry verifier's position and semantics are unchanged. Level 0.	eip.md · Public mempool handling — "[expiry_verify?] [recent_root_verify?] [deploy?] [account validation]" The expiry verifier keeps its rules and its first-frame position. supporting/eip-8141.md · Expiry Verifier Frame The expiry verifier is an ordinary deployed contract; its behavior is unchanged. Uncertainty: The extended prefix-skip rule touches handling around expiry_verify, but expiry_verify itself stays first.
EVM Gas rule changes	The frame and contract calls use ordinary EVM and EIP-8141 gas rules. Counting the frame's limit toward MAX_VERIFY_GAS is mempool policy, not execution-gas accounting. Level 0.	eip.md · Recent root contract — "All calls use ordinary EVM execution and gas accounting." The contract uses unchanged EVM gas accounting. eip.md · Recent root verifier frame — "This EIP adds no special intrinsic gas, warming rule, or exemption from block gas." No new intrinsic, warming or block-gas rule. Uncertainty: Actual gas use depends on RECENT_ROOT_CODE, which is TBD, but that is the cost of contract code, not an accounting rule.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes. The frame-entry cold access charge is inherited from EIP-8141. Level 0.	eip.md · Recent root verifier frame — "Its target access and storage reads follow the normal warm and cold access rules" Access rules are unchanged; the frame-entry target charge comes from EIP-8141.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas rules change. Level 0.	eip.md · Specification Nothing in the specification touches blobs or blob gas.
State gas accounting changes	Writes are ordinary SSTOREs under unchanged state-gas rules. There is no registration surcharge and no new charge site. Level 0.	eip.md · Implicit source creation — "writes that create storage entries pay the ordinary state growth cost" Writes use ordinary state-growth pricing. eip.md · Recent root verifier frame — "frame.limits.state == 0" The verifier frame uses no state gas. Uncertainty: A future surcharge is only mentioned as a possibility in Security Considerations.
New EVM gas refund	No new refund. Overwriting ring-buffer slots uses existing SSTORE refund rules. Level 0.	eip.md · Recent root contract No refund mechanism is defined.
New transaction types	No new envelope. Level 0.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "does not modify other transaction types" Reuses the EIP-8141 frame transaction.
New block / header fields	No header field is added by the target. Level 0.	supporting/eip-7843.md · Header extension slotNumber is added by the prerequisite.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	Only contract calldata and storage layouts are new, and the template excludes those. Level 0.	eip.md · Abstract — "This requires no change to the FrameTx envelope" No envelope change. eip.md · Recent root verifier frame — "This EIP does not change the transaction payload or signature hash." Payload and signature hash are unchanged.
Engine API changes	No Engine API change beyond the prerequisite. Level 0.	supporting/eip-7843.md · Engine API changes slotNumber Engine API changes belong to EIP-7843. eip.md · Current slot Consumes the existing slotNumber field.
Transition-tool interface changesUnder-specified	slotNumber is a prerequisite (EIP-7843) field. The EIP adds no transition-tool field or mechanism. Mempool handling is outside t8n. Level 0.	eip.md · Current slot — "MUST obtain current_slot from the EIP-7843 slotNumber field" The slot input comes from the prerequisite. eip.md · Activation — "For the first block in which this EIP is active" Activation needs knowledge of the fork boundary. Uncertainty: Detecting the first active block may need parent-fork information in the t8n input. No tool evidence was supplied.
Cryptography	Only reuses keccak256 inside contract logic and mempool direct evaluation. No cryptographic verification or protocol hashing rule changes. Level 0.	eip.md · Entry and storage keys — "entry_hash = keccak256(RECENT_ROOT_ENTRY_DOMAIN \|\| ...)" Uses unchanged keccak256 with domain separation inside contract code. Uncertainty: The domain-separated key derivation is new, but it is message construction that the template treats as an encoding concern.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8272.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob 274ce98c57 · sha256 82419d7e5c09
Rubric: Checklist revision 3 · ethspecs/pm@fe2f793b03
Evaluator: Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5) at high effort, one tool-less call per EIP · isolation bubblewrap_claude_p_no_tools_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/10-opus-v3-reassessment/prospective/outputs/assessments/hegota-2026-10-08/eip-8272.yaml · sha256 b9c0223875fb
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP: supporting/eip-7702.md, supporting/eip-7843.md, supporting/eip-8141.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

14MediumMedium

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v2
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2026-08-25
Source: open ethspecs/pm pull request #133

Score bands · Checklist revision 2

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

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

Complexity profile

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

Top complexity drivers

Edge/boundary conditions3
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms2
Cross-EIP interactions2
Added opcodes1

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8272 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Edge/boundary conditions	3	Elevated case counts. Window at both ends (`current_slot - slot` of 0, 1, 8191, 8192), index wraparound at `slot mod 8192`, the 16-reference (per-tx) cap, zero references (intrinsic gas 0, not the address cost), duplicate references (charged independently but deduplicated in access sets), last-write-wins within a slot. Calls to `RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS`: writes rejected in static context and via `DELEGATECALL`/`CALLCODE`, calldata exactly 64 bytes with zero value. `RECENTROOTREFLOAD` opcode: `field > 2` and `index >= len` halts, with multiple combinations of different `recent_root_references` in each tx	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	Multiple new tx rejection schemes: window `1 <= current_slot - slot <= 8191`, and `RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS[storage_key] == entry_hash`. One invalid reference invalidates the transaction and the containing block. Can be independently tested to EIP-8141 other rejection mechanisms.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	2	EIP-8141: this EIP is a delta against it, altering its payload and signature hash; untestable without it. EIP-7623: calldata floor is affected. EIP-7928: testing is required to ensure that the BAL items are added at the appropriate spot. EIP-7702: a delegated EOA may be a source address.	—
Added opcodes	1	One simple new opcode: `RECENTROOTREFLOAD` (0xB5), constant 3 gas, two stack pops, one push, three valid `field` values. It reads only the signed envelope, never contract storage.	—
Added system contracts	1	A single new stateful system contract at `0x…8272`. One write operation (64-byte calldata, zero value), but no read operation is exposed. Lower score because it involves no novel testing methodologies.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	1	Minimal changes to EIP-8141 gas rules, adding new rules to the data pricing of the roots included, and cost of the hashing required to get the entry hash/storage key.	—
State-access ordering within opcode execution	1	The frame transaction now conditionally accesses the storage of `RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS` before execution of any of the frames.	—
New fork activation mechanism	1	EIP states that an irregular state transition is required, but this is complex and potentially it is not necessary: We probably can simply deploy using the well known system contract deployment methods used for previous forks. Worth pushing back on the deployment method as it is probably an outdated specification requirement.	—
New test-framework primitives	1	New helpers required to construct the `recent_root_references` embedded in the transactions. Also to register them in the `RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS` contract.	—
Performance risks	1	Requires testing worst-case block filled with transactions consuming block limit using `MAX_RECENT_ROOT_REFERENCES`.	—

Show 18 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Modified opcodes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
State gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New block / header fields	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	Although `recent_root_references` is inserted into the EIP-8141 transaction type, it's not an optional field and it's easy to add to the encoder.	—
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Engine API changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Transition-tool interface changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Security risks	No rationale recorded.	—
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	No major underspecification identified.	—

Assessment provenance

Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Open pull request #133: Add EIP-8272 complexity assessment · checklist at d54b36561f · updated 2026-08-25
blob 81aae13863 · sha256 9164c943cf8a
Research record: research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-8272.yaml · sha256 ae44c7312e99

The LLM applied checklist revision 3 and the human reviewers revision 2 to EIP-8272 in Hegotá. Revision 3 phrases the same criteria more precisely; differences cover the 28 criteria both revisions share, and each total keeps its own revision. Δ is LLM minus Human.

Using the latest scored LLM evaluation for this checklist: 2026-10-08 · spec 2026-10-07 · 6dac5e7491. The Human and LLM assessments may use different spec revisions.

LLM24High

Human14Medium

Δ total+10Tiers differ: High vs Medium

Criteria16/28agree exactly · 8 differ by 1 · 4 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Block syncing changes (+2), New fork activation mechanism (+2), Security risks (+2), Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (+2), EVM Gas rule changes (−1)

Show differences only (12 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Block syncing changes	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM One complex block-validity rule, tested through block import: the first active block is invalid if RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS has nonempty code or storage in the parent state. It depends on state, so it is complex. No RLP decoding changes. Level 2. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	3	1	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Activation installs code at a new or existing empty account: nonce max(n,1), balance preserved, invalid if code or storage is present. This differs from ordinary post-fork processing. Level 3. Human EIP states that an irregular state transition is required, but this is complex and potentially it is not necessary: We probably can simply deploy using the well known system contract deployment methods used for previous forks. Worth pushing back on the deployment method as it is probably an outdated specification requirement.
Security risks	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Relaxing the mempool's no-shared-mutable-state invariant changes security assumptions between mempool admission/eviction, block-builder revalidation and the contract. Needed adversarial cases: mass invalidation via reorg or expiry, same-slot overwrite, and the gap between mempool slot and payload slot. Write-context isolation (static, DELEGATECALL, 7702) also needs checking. This is a bounded interaction rather than a change across many components. Level 2. Human No rationale recorded.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Several consensus-visible outcomes cannot be fixed yet: gas used by write and validation calls, short-circuit order on failing tuples (which affects warm sets and gas), the failure mode for static-context writes, and the install trigger when genesis is in the fork. These are localized competing outcomes that need specification agreement. Level 2. Human No major underspecification identified.
Added opcodes	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM No new instruction. Level 0. Human One simple new opcode: `RECENTROOTREFLOAD` (0xB5), constant 3 gas, two stack pops, one push, three valid `field` values. It reads only the signed envelope, never contract storage.
Added system contracts	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Exactly one stateful system contract is introduced. Level 2. Human A single new stateful system contract at `0x…8272`. One write operation (64-byte calldata, zero value), but no read operation is exposed. Lower score because it involves no novel testing methodologies.
EVM Gas rule changes	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The frame and contract calls use ordinary EVM and EIP-8141 gas rules. Counting the frame's limit toward MAX_VERIFY_GAS is mempool policy, not execution-gas accounting. Level 0. Human Minimal changes to EIP-8141 gas rules, adding new rules to the data pricing of the roots included, and cost of the hashing required to get the entry hash/storage key.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM No instruction's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes. The frame-entry cold access charge is inherited from EIP-8141. Level 0. Human The frame transaction now conditionally accesses the storage of `RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS` before execution of any of the frames.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Rework is limited to particular cases in the EIP-8141 public mempool prefix-shape family. A VERIFY frame with flags 0 targeting 0x…8272 before account validation used to be rejected and may now be accepted, and the deploy-first check now applies after skipping. Baseline execution tests are otherwise unaffected. Level 1. Human No rationale recorded.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Fork-transition tests must also assert the newly installed account (code, nonce 1, preserved balance, empty storage) in the first active block. Only that restricted family needs the assertion. Level 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Performance risks	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Needs targeted integrated benchmarks of mempool dependency indexing and revalidation under reorgs and synchronized expiry of popular roots, and of 16-SLOAD validation inside the MAX_VERIFY_GAS budget. This is a bounded interaction between mempool and state. Level 2. Human Requires testing worst-case block filled with transactions consuming block limit using `MAX_RECENT_ROOT_REFERENCES`.
Cross-EIP interactions	3	2	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The target couples EIP-8141 (frame modes, flags, STATICCALL VERIFY, frame-entry cold charge, prefix matching, MAX_VERIFY_GAS, introspection, revalidation) with EIP-7843 (SLOTNUM as current_slot, mempool header+1 slot, payload slot revalidation). This requires coordinated scenarios across both, plus EIP-7702 storage-context checks. Level 3. Human EIP-8141: this EIP is a delta against it, altering its payload and signature hash; untestable without it. EIP-7623: calldata floor is affected. EIP-7928: testing is required to ensure that the BAL items are added at the appropriate spot. EIP-7702: a delegated EOA may be a source address.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Instruction semantics are unchanged. The SLOTNUM/SLOAD permissions are public-mempool policy only. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile is introduced. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No existing protocol-designated contract changes its rules, code or layout. The expiry verifier's position and semantics are unchanged. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas rules change. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Writes are ordinary SSTOREs under unchanged state-gas rules. There is no registration surcharge and no new charge site. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new refund. Overwriting ring-buffer slots uses existing SSTORE refund rules. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new envelope. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The VERIFY invalidation rule is inherited, but the protocol-installed contract adds a new consensus validity dependency on recent-root storage, SLOTNUM and the window. This needs dedicated multi-block cases: write in slot S then reference at S+1, a same-slot reference, ages 8191 and 8192, overwrite within a slot, and a reorg-removed root. Baseline EIP-8141 test construction remains usable. Level 2. Human Multiple new tx rejection schemes: window `1 <= current_slot - slot <= 8191`, and `RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS[storage_key] == entry_hash`. One invalid reference invalidates the transaction and the containing block. Can be independently tested to EIP-8141 other rejection mechanisms.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No header field is added by the target. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Only contract calldata and storage layouts are new, and the template excludes those. Level 0. Human Although `recent_root_references` is inserted into the EIP-8141 transaction type, it's not an optional field and it's easy to add to the encoder.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No Engine API change beyond the prerequisite. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM slotNumber is a prerequisite (EIP-7843) field. The EIP adds no transition-tool field or mechanism. Mempool handling is outside t8n. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Needs local extensions to existing kinds of primitive: tuple and frame builders, an entry-hash/storage-key pre-state helper, and mempool eviction expectations for slot advance and reorg on top of the EIP-8141 mempool revalidation harness. No new shared abstraction is architecturally required. Level 1. Human New helpers required to construct the `recent_root_references` embedded in the transactions. Also to register them in the `RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS` contract.
Edge/boundary conditions	3	3	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM There are several independent boundary-sensitive mechanisms: the age window and ring index, calldata length and tuple count, the MAX_VERIFY_GAS budget, the execution limit, and the activation-state conditions. The frame-position rule is an elevated matrix: four prefix shapes × expiry_verify presence × recent_root_verify presence × order and duplication, where combinations change acceptance. Separately, the current_slot definition (mempool header+1 vs payload slotNumber) interacts with the age window. Level 3. Human Elevated case counts. Window at both ends (`current_slot - slot` of 0, 1, 8191, 8192), index wraparound at `slot mod 8192`, the 16-reference (per-tx) cap, zero references (intrinsic gas 0, not the address cost), duplicate references (charged independently but deduplicated in access sets), last-write-wins within a slot. Calls to `RECENT_ROOT_ADDRESS`: writes rejected in static context and via `DELEGATECALL`/`CALLCODE`, calldata exactly 64 bytes with zero value. `RECENTROOTREFLOAD` opcode: `field > 2` and `index >= len` halts, with multiple combinations of different `recent_root_references` in each tx
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Only reuses keccak256 inside contract logic and mempool direct evaluation. No cryptographic verification or protocol hashing rule changes. Level 0. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-8272 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 · 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.
SGAS
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.
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 · 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.

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 · 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.