EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8368: CPSB Recalibration for New Gas Limit

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 12

Human Draft PRscore 16 · Checklist revision 2· ethspecs/pm #129 (draft)

LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-26 · Original snapshot · 12 Human · Checklist revision 2Draft PR · 16 CompareHuman vs LLM · same checklist revision

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

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer assessment of the Draft placeholder proposal to replace the CPSB value defined by EIP-8037 for a new, still-undetermined reference block gas limit. The snapshot explicitly leaves the reference limit, CPSB value, rationale, and security analysis unresolved while leaving EIP-8037's other parameters, mechanisms, and semantics unchanged.

12MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 7 criteria affected
Plausible range: 8–15 (Low–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.

Top complexity drivers

Security risks2
Performance risks2
Cross-EIP interactions2
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2

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: EIP-8368 is explicitly a placeholder. It does not provide the new reference block gas limit, the re-derived CPSB integer, the calculation and rationale supporting that integer, or substantive security analysis. These omissions prevent exact gas vectors and quantitative performance or risk validation; they do not evidence any mechanism beyond the stated CPSB adjustment.

Plausible total

8–15
recorded score 12 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Affected criteria (7)

Modified system contracts (1)
State gas accounting changes (1)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (1)
Security risks (2)
Performance risks (2)
Edge/boundary conditions (1)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (5)

What new reference block gas limit replaces the 150M reference?
What exact integer CPSB value results, including the intended rounding rule?
What derivation and empirical assumptions justify the selected value?
What security and economic effects follow from the selected magnitude?
Which CPSB-derived expected values, including the system-call gas allowance, are intended to be explicitly rebaselined?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (2)

The statement that all other parameters are unaffected is clear about formulas and semantics, but the proposal does not enumerate derived numerical values that necessarily change when CPSB changes.
'The same methodology as EIP-8037' does not state how an approximate derived ratio is converted into the final integer CPSB.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8368 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Security risksUnder-specified	2	Miscalibrating the common state-byte price can alter the resource assumptions across several state-creation paths and warrants targeted security and economic review, but EIP-8368 adds no new mechanism requiring an extensive multi-component redesign.	eip.md · Motivation; Security Considerations The proposal aims to keep state growth on target as the block limit rises, while its security section is only 'Needs discussion.' supporting/eip-8037.md · Security Considerations EIP-8037 identifies usability effects from state-creation pricing and resource-allocation concerns associated with its state-gas model. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: The target proposal supplies no security analysis and no value, so neither the direction nor materiality of its risks can be bounded from the package.
Performance risksUnder-specified	2	The value cannot be validated in isolation from block utilization and resulting state growth, and it modifies existing resource-growth behavior. The change is nevertheless localized to one established parameter rather than a new interacting mechanism.	eip.md · Motivation; Specification; Rationale CPSB must be recalibrated because a higher block gas limit changes expected state growth, but the reference limit, value, and rationale are TBD. supporting/eip-8037.md · Rationale / Deriving the cost per state byte (CPSB) CPSB is derived from the reference gas limit, annual block count, average state-gas utilization, and a target annual state-growth rate. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: With no reference limit, CPSB, derivation, or rationale, the magnitude and benchmark impact cannot be determined and could support a different score.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	EIP-8368 directly modifies EIP-8037's defining parameter, requiring coordinated expected-value testing, but the interaction is limited to that one parameter and one identified EIP.	eip.md · Front matter 'requires'; Abstract; Backwards Compatibility EIP-8368 requires EIP-8037, modifies the CPSB parameter introduced there, and inherits its backwards-compatibility considerations. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / New parameters; Parameter changes EIP-8037 defines CPSB and applies it throughout its state-creation gas schedule. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The replacement value is missing, but the dependency and interaction scope are explicit. Interacting EIPs: EIP-8037
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Clients cannot baseline CPSB-derived gas results until the exact value is agreed. The missing decision is localized to an already observable gas parameter, so it does not meet the score-3 condition of making previously unobservable behavior consensus-critical.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification; Rationale; Security Considerations The proposal calls itself a placeholder and leaves the new reference block gas limit, CPSB value, rationale, and security discussion unresolved. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The central consensus value is explicitly absent; the package gives no basis for choosing it.
Modified system contractsUnder-specified	1	Changing CPSB indirectly changes the derived gas allowance for existing system-contract calls, but it changes no system-contract code or state and leaves the call mechanism intact.	eip.md · Abstract CPSB changes while EIP-8037's mechanisms and semantics remain unchanged. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / System contracts and system transactions EIP-8037 derives the system-call gas limit and state-gas reservoir allocation from CPSB for existing per-block system calls. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The evaluated system-call allowance cannot be calculated until CPSB is supplied, and EIP-8368 does not enumerate this derived consequence.
State gas accounting changesUnder-specified	1	This is precisely an adjustment to an existing state-gas cost parameter; it introduces neither a charging site nor a new state-gas mechanism.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification EIP-8368 will replace the CPSB value using the EIP-8037 methodology for a new reference block gas limit, but the new value is TBD. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / New parameters; Parameter changes EIP-8037 defines CPSB as 1530 and multiplies it by state-byte rates for storage, accounts, authorization data, and deployed code. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The direction and amount of the adjustment cannot be tested until CPSB and the reference block gas limit are supplied.
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	1	A localized subset of pre-existing gas tests must rebaseline CPSB-derived expected costs and out-of-gas points, but their test logic need not be redesigned.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification Existing CPSB-based behavior receives a new numerical value while all mechanisms and semantics remain fixed. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / Parameter changes CPSB appears in existing expected state-gas costs for CREATE, CREATE2, CALL, SELFDESTRUCT, SSTORE, and EOA delegation. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package does not quantify the replacement value or identify a test corpus, so the exact affected-test count cannot be established.
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	1	The recalibration shifts the existing exact-gas boundary for CPSB-sensitive state creation. This is one boundary-prone parameter change, not multiple new mechanisms.	eip.md · Specification The replacement CPSB value, which determines the amount charged per state byte, remains TBD. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / Parameter changes; Transaction-level gas accounting (reservoir model) CPSB-derived charges draw from the state reservoir and then gas_left, so their numerical value sets exact sufficiency and out-of-gas boundaries. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Exact below-at-above boundary vectors cannot be derived until CPSB is fixed.

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is added.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The proposal declares only a CPSB value update and no new opcode. Uncertainty: The placeholder has no opcode-allocation question.
Modified opcodes	The rubric excludes gas-only changes from modified-opcode behavior, and no opcode result or non-gas behavior changes.	eip.md · Abstract EIP-8368 preserves all EIP-8037 mechanisms and semantics other than the CPSB parameter value. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / Parameter changes Several existing opcodes use CPSB-derived gas costs, but the target proposal changes only that gas parameter. Uncertainty: The unknown gas value affects opcode cost expectations, not this row's behavior criterion.
Added precompiles	No precompile is added.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification A CPSB parameter update is the entire declared change; no precompile is introduced. Uncertainty: No precompile surface is present.
Modified precompiles	No precompile behavior or gas schedule is modified.	eip.md · Abstract Only the state-byte cost parameter changes and all other EIP-8037 mechanisms and semantics remain fixed. Uncertainty: The missing CPSB value does not affect any stated precompile schedule.
Added system contracts	No system contract is added.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification EIP-8368 only recalibrates CPSB and does not introduce a contract or system action. Uncertainty: No added-contract surface appears in the proposal.
EVM Gas rule changes	The targeted parameter is a state-gas cost, not an EVM execution-gas accounting rule; no execution-gas accounting mechanism is changed.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The proposal changes only CPSB, the unit cost per new state byte, and says every other EIP-8037 parameter, mechanism, and semantic remains unchanged. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / Multidimensional metering for state creation costs EIP-8037 assigns state-creation costs using CPSB to the separate state-gas dimension, while other operation costs remain execution-gas. Uncertainty: The CPSB amount is missing, but its absence does not move the change into the execution-gas accounting dimension.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	Replacing a multiplier does not move any state access or gas charge relative to an access, and EIP-8368 specifies no ordering change.	eip.md · Abstract The proposal expressly leaves all EIP-8037 mechanisms and semantics unchanged and changes only the CPSB value. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / Pre-state and post-state gas validation EIP-8037 already defines when state-gas is computed and deducted for state-accessing opcodes. Uncertainty: The replacement value is TBD, but no ordering question is left open.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas accounting rule or value is changed.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The proposal is limited to recalibrating the cost per state byte and contains no blob-gas provision. Uncertainty: Nothing in the stated placeholder scope suggests a blob-gas change.
New EVM gas refund	A new EVM gas-refund mechanism is not introduced. Existing state-gas refill amounts may scale with CPSB, but their mechanism is unchanged.	eip.md · Abstract Only CPSB changes; all EIP-8037 mechanisms and semantics remain unchanged. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / Transaction-level gas accounting (reservoir model) EIP-8037 already defines its state-gas refill behavior, including LIFO restoration when state creation is undone. Uncertainty: The exact scaled refill amounts are unknown because CPSB is TBD.
New transaction types	No transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification EIP-8368 contains only a CPSB recalibration and defines no transaction envelope or type. Uncertainty: The placeholder does not leave a transaction-type design open.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	The recalibration changes runtime state-gas amounts, not transaction validity rules or intrinsic-gas calculation.	eip.md · Abstract EIP-8368 states that all EIP-8037 mechanisms and semantics other than CPSB remain unchanged. supporting/eip-8037.md · Specification / Transaction validation EIP-8037 places state-dependent charges at runtime and defines intrinsic gas as entirely execution-gas; CPSB is not a new validity-rule input. Uncertainty: Transactions may reach different runtime gas boundaries once CPSB is known, but that is not a validity-mechanism change.
New block / header fields	The existing block/header structure is unchanged.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification No block or header field is introduced by the CPSB value update. Uncertainty: The unresolved numerical parameter does not imply a new field.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No RLP, SSZ, or other interface encoding is changed.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The proposal changes a gas parameter and specifies no transaction, block, or interface encoding change. Uncertainty: Encoding is outside the declared scope.
Block syncing changes	No block-encoding validation or syncing rule is changed.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The proposal changes only CPSB and introduces no block RLP validation mechanism. Uncertainty: No syncing surface is present in the declared scope.
New fork activation mechanism	Ordinary activation of a revised protocol constant is not a new fork-activation mechanism; no fork-block-only modification is specified.	eip.md · Abstract; Backwards Compatibility The proposal describes a parameter update and inherited compatibility considerations, but no activation-block state transition or special internal-variable mutation. Uncertainty: The placeholder does not specify activation details, so this assessment is limited to the absence of any special mechanism in the snapshot.
Engine API changes	No Engine API change is introduced.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The proposal contains no Engine API field, endpoint, or communication mechanism and preserves EIP-8037 mechanisms. Uncertainty: The placeholder omits the parameter value, not an Engine API design.
Transition-tool interface changes	The proposal requires no new transition-tool field or interface mechanism.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The only declared change is the existing CPSB protocol parameter; no transition-tool field or interface is specified. Uncertainty: Tooling details are not discussed, but the stated scope supplies no interface payload that would require a new field.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Affected tests need different expected numbers, not an additional invariant or newly produced object to assert.	eip.md · Abstract The proposal changes a pre-existing parameter and explicitly preserves all other mechanisms and semantics. Uncertainty: The absent CPSB value blocks numerical expectations but does not describe a new assertion.
New test-framework primitives	Existing gas-expectation and boundary-test primitives suffice for a numerical cost update.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification EIP-8368 is an existing-parameter recalibration with no new protocol mechanism or output type. Uncertainty: No testing section is supplied, but no proposed behavior calls for a new framework abstraction.
Cryptography	No cryptographic functionality is added or modified.	eip.md · Abstract; Specification The scope is solely a state-byte gas-cost recalibration and contains no cryptographic mechanism. Uncertainty: The missing parameter and rationale do not create a cryptography question.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-8368.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 7be6293988 · sha256 5092c19d1dff
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-8368.yaml · sha256 56984349a6fe
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-8037.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

16MediumMedium

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v2
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2026-08-24
Source: open ethspecs/pm pull request #129 (draft)

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

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests4
Cross-EIP interactions4
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus3
Edge/boundary conditions2

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8368 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsExceptional	4	Measured blast radius: 1,614 executions / 314 functions of 65,756 collected, spanning ported static plus tangerine, byzantium, osaka, prague, and amsterdam suites. 300 files parked, 8 sibling suites re-derived to fork-correct budgets. Scored above anchor 3 because the impact recurs: the value is TBD, so every parked boundary and re-derived budget moves again when the final value lands.	—
Cross-EIP interactionsExceptional	4	Directly modifies EIP-8037. Coordinated testing needed with EIP-7954 (a 2x CPSB puts a max-size deposit above ~201M gas, undeployable below that block limit), EIP-7825 (cap-funded state creation capacity halves to ~5.5 KiB per transaction), EIP-7702 (per-authorization state gas), EIP-7928 (BAL scenario budgets), and EIP-8038 (companion access-gas schedule). Six interacting EIPs: anchor 3 plus one increment.	—
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	3	Scored from the EIP's state at assessment time: the entire Specification section is TBD (reference limit, value, rationale, rounding rule), there are no client implementations, and it has never been on a devnet. Every amendment round re-baselines every fixture that creates state. The prototype's ceiling rounding reproduces the published 1530 at 150M, but nothing in the EIP confirms it.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	2	Exact-fit and one-short OOG boundaries at every charging site, plus the funding-regime boundary (reservoir vs spill vs the block gas limit, which a max-size deposit now exceeds). Multiple prone surfaces, none with elevated case counts.	—
State gas accounting changes	1	The definitional anchor-1 case: `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE` is adjusted (1530 to a provisional 3060). Byte rates, charging sites, reservoir mechanics, and the spill path are untouched.	—
Security risks	1	A self-contained parameter change, validated in isolation. It doubles the economic cost of state creation, an economics shift rather than a mechanism risk.	—
Performance risks	1	No new mechanism, but the recalibrated value can only be validated against state-growth benchmarks, and the benchmark suite sits outside the measured blast radius (excluded from default fills) while its state-heavy compositions halve in per-block capacity.	—

Show 21 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified opcodes	No result changes, only prices.	—
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified system contracts	The system-transaction reservoir re-derives from the constant; contract code unchanged.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	Execution gas schedule untouched. The change is confined to state gas, scored on its own row. Measured: zero execution-gas flips outside state-charging paths.	—
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No ordering changes, only the size of a charge.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	—
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	Intrinsic rules and the gas limit cap are unchanged; only charged amounts shift.	—
New block / header fields	No rationale recorded.	—
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No rationale recorded.	—
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New fork activation mechanism	No rationale recorded.	—
Engine API changes	No rationale recorded.	—
Transition-tool interface changes	The constant flows through the existing interface.	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	No new assertion lands on unrelated tests.	—
New test-framework primitives	The EIP-8037 fork API (`cost_per_state_byte`) already exists; activation is one override.	—
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	—

Assessment provenance

Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Open draft pull request #129: Add EIP-8368 complexity assessment · checklist at e47b8d0d35 · updated 2026-08-24
blob c5097f7fc6 · sha256 8163ff2c35ea
Research record: research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-8368.yaml · sha256 b1cc9217440a

Both assessments applied Checklist revision 2 (28 criteria) to EIP-8368 in Hegotá. Δ is LLM minus Human.

Using the latest scored LLM evaluation for this checklist: 2026-08-26 · spec 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2. The Human and LLM assessments may use different spec revisions.

LLM12Medium

Human16Medium

Δ total−4Same tier

Criteria21/28agree exactly · 5 differ by 1 · 2 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (−3), Cross-EIP interactions (−2), Edge/boundary conditions (−1), Modified system contracts (+1), Performance risks (+1)

Show differences only (7 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	4	−3	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM A localized subset of pre-existing gas tests must rebaseline CPSB-derived expected costs and out-of-gas points, but their test logic need not be redesigned. Human Measured blast radius: 1,614 executions / 314 functions of 65,756 collected, spanning ported static plus tangerine, byzantium, osaka, prague, and amsterdam suites. 300 files parked, 8 sibling suites re-derived to fork-correct budgets. Scored above anchor 3 because the impact recurs: the value is TBD, so every parked boundary and re-derived budget moves again when the final value lands.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	4	−2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM EIP-8368 directly modifies EIP-8037's defining parameter, requiring coordinated expected-value testing, but the interaction is limited to that one parameter and one identified EIP. Human Directly modifies EIP-8037. Coordinated testing needed with EIP-7954 (a 2x CPSB puts a max-size deposit above ~201M gas, undeployable below that block limit), EIP-7825 (cap-funded state creation capacity halves to ~5.5 KiB per transaction), EIP-7702 (per-authorization state gas), EIP-7928 (BAL scenario budgets), and EIP-8038 (companion access-gas schedule). Six interacting EIPs: anchor 3 plus one increment.
Modified system contracts	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Changing CPSB indirectly changes the derived gas allowance for existing system-contract calls, but it changes no system-contract code or state and leaves the call mechanism intact. Human The system-transaction reservoir re-derives from the constant; contract code unchanged.
Security risks	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Miscalibrating the common state-byte price can alter the resource assumptions across several state-creation paths and warrants targeted security and economic review, but EIP-8368 adds no new mechanism requiring an extensive multi-component redesign. Human A self-contained parameter change, validated in isolation. It doubles the economic cost of state creation, an economics shift rather than a mechanism risk.
Performance risks	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The value cannot be validated in isolation from block utilization and resulting state growth, and it modifies existing resource-growth behavior. The change is nevertheless localized to one established parameter rather than a new interacting mechanism. Human No new mechanism, but the recalibrated value can only be validated against state-growth benchmarks, and the benchmark suite sits outside the measured blast radius (excluded from default fills) while its state-heavy compositions halve in per-block capacity.
Edge/boundary conditions	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The recalibration shifts the existing exact-gas boundary for CPSB-sensitive state creation. This is one boundary-prone parameter change, not multiple new mechanisms. Human Exact-fit and one-short OOG boundaries at every charging site, plus the funding-regime boundary (reservoir vs spill vs the block gas limit, which a max-size deposit now exceeds). Multiple prone surfaces, none with elevated case counts.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	3	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Clients cannot baseline CPSB-derived gas results until the exact value is agreed. The missing decision is localized to an already observable gas parameter, so it does not meet the score-3 condition of making previously unobservable behavior consensus-critical. Human Scored from the EIP's state at assessment time: the entire Specification section is TBD (reference limit, value, rationale, rounding rule), there are no client implementations, and it has never been on a devnet. Every amendment round re-baselines every fixture that creates state. The prototype's ceiling rounding reproduces the published 1530 at 150M, but nothing in the EIP confirms it.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No opcode is added. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The rubric excludes gas-only changes from modified-opcode behavior, and no opcode result or non-gas behavior changes. Human No result changes, only prices.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile is added. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile behavior or gas schedule is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract is added. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The targeted parameter is a state-gas cost, not an EVM execution-gas accounting rule; no execution-gas accounting mechanism is changed. Human Execution gas schedule untouched. The change is confined to state gas, scored on its own row. Measured: zero execution-gas flips outside state-charging paths.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Replacing a multiplier does not move any state access or gas charge relative to an access, and EIP-8368 specifies no ordering change. Human No ordering changes, only the size of a charge.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas accounting rule or value is changed. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM This is precisely an adjustment to an existing state-gas cost parameter; it introduces neither a charging site nor a new state-gas mechanism. Human The definitional anchor-1 case: `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE` is adjusted (1530 to a provisional 3060). Byte rates, charging sites, reservoir mechanics, and the spill path are untouched.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM A new EVM gas-refund mechanism is not introduced. Existing state-gas refill amounts may scale with CPSB, but their mechanism is unchanged. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transaction type is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The recalibration changes runtime state-gas amounts, not transaction validity rules or intrinsic-gas calculation. Human Intrinsic rules and the gas limit cap are unchanged; only charged amounts shift.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The existing block/header structure is unchanged. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No RLP, SSZ, or other interface encoding is changed. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No block-encoding validation or syncing rule is changed. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Ordinary activation of a revised protocol constant is not a new fork-activation mechanism; no fork-block-only modification is specified. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No Engine API change is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal requires no new transition-tool field or interface mechanism. Human The constant flows through the existing interface.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Affected tests need different expected numbers, not an additional invariant or newly produced object to assert. Human No new assertion lands on unrelated tests.
New test-framework primitives	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Existing gas-expectation and boundary-test primitives suffice for a numerical cost update. Human The EIP-8037 fork API (`cost_per_state_byte`) already exists; activation is one override.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic functionality is added or modified. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-8368 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.