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 2026-10-07EIP-8081: PFILayers: execution

LLM Completescore 11

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

LLM · Checklist revision 32026-10-08 · Opus 5.5 · snapshot · 11 Human · Checklist revision 2Draft PR · 16 CompareHuman vs LLM · shared criteria

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

Scope at the cutoff. EIP-8368 is a placeholder that would replace the value of EIP-8037's `CPSB` (cost per state byte) with a value re-derived for a new reference block gas limit, using EIP-8037's methodology. The new reference gas limit, the new `CPSB` value and the rationale are all TBD. It states that every other EIP-8037 parameter, mechanism and semantic stays the same. In practice, every state-gas charge that EIP-8037 defines as a multiple of `CPSB` changes value: new storage slots, new accounts, code deposit, the EIP-7702 per-authorization base and new-account costs, and the formula-derived `SYSTEM_CALL_GAS_LIMIT` reservoir.

11LowLow

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v3
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 7 criteria affected
Plausible range: 5–15 (Low–Medium)
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.

Top complexity drivers

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus2
Modified system contracts1
State gas accounting changes1

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes

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

Why: The target is a placeholder. The new CPSB value, the new reference block gas limit, the rationale and the security analysis are all TBD, so no CPSB-dependent expected result can be fixed yet. The mechanism is fully inherited from EIP-8037.

Plausible total

5–15
recorded score 11 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Affected criteria (7)

Modified system contracts (1)
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms (0)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (3)
Security risks (1)
Performance risks (1)
Cross-EIP interactions (1)
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

What is the new CPSB value and the new reference block gas limit?
Is the 120 GiB/year target growth (and 50% utilization assumption) retained in the re-derivation?
Does SYSTEM_MAX_SSTORES_PER_CALL or the system-call base remain unchanged, given that SYSTEM_CALL_GAS_LIMIT scales with CPSB?
Do any CPSB-derived costs enter intrinsic gas under EIP-2780 (not supplied)?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (4)

The CPSB value is TBD, so all expected state-gas values are undefined.
How much rework PAT needs depends on whether baseline tests are parameterized by CPSB; this is not evidenced.
EIP-2780 and EIP-8038 are referenced by EIP-8037 but not supplied, so whether intrinsic gas depends on CPSB cannot be checked.
If CPSB rises, contract-size limits within TX_MAX_GAS_LIMIT (no reservoir) shrink, along with deterministic deployment factory feasibility on new networks; the size of this effect is unknown.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8368 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	3	A single common change (the CPSB value) alters the expected gas used, balances, reservoir/spill amounts and OOG boundaries for ordinary cases in several distinct baseline families: SSTORE, value-bearing CALL to new accounts, CREATE/CREATE2 and code deposit, SELFDESTRUCT beneficiaries, 7702 authorizations, contract-creation transactions, block gas_used/base fee, and system calls.	supporting/eip-8037.md · Gas accounting for SSTORE / Gas accounting for new accounts State-gas charges and refills for SSTORE, CALL* with value, CREATE/CREATE2, SELFDESTRUCT and contract-creation transactions are all multiples of CPSB. supporting/eip-8037.md · System contracts and system transactions — SYSTEM_CALL_GAS_LIMIT The system-call gas limit and reservoir depend on CPSB. supporting/eip-8037.md · EIP-7825 limit on contract size The maximum deployable code within TX_MAX_GAS_LIMIT (no reservoir) depends on CPSB, so boundary cases shift. supporting/eip-8037.md · Deterministic deployment factories Pre-signed deployment gas limits are sensitive to CPSB. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: If baseline tests derive expectations from a fork-scoped CPSB parameter, the rework is mostly recomputation. Tests with hand-tuned gas limits or OOG boundaries still need revision. The amount of change depends on the TBD value.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensusUnder-specified	2	Every CPSB-dependent consensus outcome (charges, gas used, balances, block gas_used) cannot be fixed until the value is agreed. This is a localized but decisive omission in an otherwise defined mechanism. It does not make previously unobservable behavior visible, so level 3 does not apply.	eip.md · Specification — "CPSB \| TBD" The normative value is unspecified. eip.md · Abstract — "This is a placeholder EIP" The reference gas limit and the CPSB value are both TBD. Confidence: High Uncertainty: Once a value is chosen, this drops to 0.
Modified system contractsUnder-specified	1	Contract rules and code are unchanged. One input convention changes indirectly: the system call's gas limit and reservoir, along with the state-gas charged for system-contract SSTOREs.	supporting/eip-8037.md · System contracts and system transactions — "SYSTEM_CALL_GAS_LIMIT = 30_000_000 + STATE_BYTES_PER_STORAGE_SET × CPSB × SYSTEM_MAX_SSTORES_PER_CALL" The system-call gas limit and its state_gas_reservoir portion scale with CPSB. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: This could be seen as a pure parameter recomputation (level 0), since system calls do not count toward block gas.
State gas accounting changes	1	This matches level 1 exactly: only an existing state-byte rate changes. The reservoir model, spill and refill mechanisms are unchanged.	eip.md · Specification — "The CPSB value below will be re-derived" The only change is the state-byte rate CPSB. supporting/eip-8037.md · Parameter changes GAS_CREATE, GAS_CODE_DEPOSIT, GAS_NEW_ACCOUNT, GAS_STORAGE_SET, PER_EMPTY_ACCOUNT_COST and PER_AUTH_BASE_COST state gas are all byte counts multiplied by CPSB. Confidence: High
Security risksUnder-specified	1	Changed conditions are local: state-growth DoS bounds, the size of refill-driven gas_left jumps, and contract-size limits. They can be checked without changing other components' assumptions.	eip.md · Security Considerations — "Needs discussion." There is no security analysis yet. supporting/eip-8037.md · `gas_left` can increase / Deterministic deployment factories The amounts of gas_left refills and the gas required by pre-signed deployments scale with CPSB. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: The security analysis is absent; the value is TBD.
Performance risksUnder-specified	1	The worst-case bound on state bytes written per block changes with CPSB and the new gas limit. Renewed component-level benchmarking of state-write-heavy blocks is warranted, but no new resource coupling is introduced.	eip.md · Motivation — "recalibrated to keep state growth on target" The purpose is to bound state growth at a new gas limit. supporting/eip-8037.md · Why target 120 GiB per year? Worst-case state bytes per block are roughly gas_limit / CPSB. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: With the CPSB value and reference gas limit both TBD, the direction and size of the change are unknown.
Edge/boundary conditions	1	One boundary-sensitive mechanism, state-gas charge magnitude, changes value. This moves the exact-gas OOG, spill and contract-size boundaries. No new boundary rule is introduced.	supporting/eip-8037.md · Transaction-level gas accounting (reservoir model) State-gas charges draw from the reservoir and then spill into gas_left; exact-gas OOG points scale with CPSB. supporting/eip-8037.md · EIP-7825 limit on contract size The maximum code size deployable without a reservoir depends on CPSB. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: One could argue the system-call reservoir sizing is a second independent boundary. It is derived from the same CPSB.
Cross-EIP interactionsUnder-specified	1	The target changes one EIP-8037 parameter. Checks confirm that every EIP-8037-derived cost and the system-call limit use the new value, and that the reservoir spill points shift consistently. These are local compatibility checks rather than a new coupled behavior.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility — "inherits its backwards compatibility considerations" The target is a parameter override of EIP-8037. supporting/eip-8037.md · System contracts and system transactions; EIP-7825 limit on contract size CPSB feeds the system-call reservoir and the reservoir/TX_MAX_GAS_LIMIT split. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Boundary cases at the TX_MAX_GAS_LIMIT/reservoir split and the system-call reservoir sizing could be treated as coordinated cases (level 2). Interacting EIPs: EIP-8037

Show 20 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	None.	eip.md · Specification No new instructions.
Modified opcodes	These are gas-only changes, which the template excludes from this criterion.	eip.md · Abstract — "semantics ... remain unchanged" SSTORE, CREATE, CALL and SELFDESTRUCT change in gas only.
Added precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification No precompiles.
Modified precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification No precompile changes.
Added system contracts	None added.	eip.md · Specification No contracts are introduced.
EVM Gas rule changes	CPSB only scales state-gas charges. The execution-gas accounting rules and parameters are unchanged. When state gas spills into gas_left, a different CPSB moves gas_left, but that effect belongs to state-gas accounting.	eip.md · Abstract — "All other parameters, mechanisms, and semantics defined in EIP-8037 ... remain unchanged" Only CPSB changes; execution-gas rules are untouched. supporting/eip-8037.md · Parameter changes — "New Execution Gas" column Execution-gas components (CREATE_ACCESS, hash cost, ACCOUNT_WRITE, EXECUTION_PER_AUTH_BASE_COST) do not depend on CPSB. Uncertainty: State-gas spill into gas_left changes the GAS opcode values seen in tests with no reservoir. This is counted under SGAS/PAT, not here.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No instruction's state-access or charge ordering changes.	eip.md · Specification — CPSB \| TBD Only a value changes; no ordering rules are touched. supporting/eip-8037.md · Account-creation charging and EIP-7928 Charge placement and access timing are defined by EIP-8037 and are not changed by the target.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas rule changes.	eip.md · Specification Only CPSB is in scope; blobs are not mentioned.
New EVM gas refund	No new refund mechanism is added. Refill amounts scale with CPSB, but the mechanism itself is unchanged.	eip.md · Abstract No new refund mechanism; EIP-8037's refill semantics are unchanged.
New transaction types	None.	eip.md · Specification No new transaction type.
New or modified transaction validity mechanismsUnder-specified	State-gas charges are runtime charges, so a different CPSB does not change transaction validity.	supporting/eip-8037.md · Transaction validation — "intrinsic_gas is state-independent and charged entirely in execution-gas" Validity checks use intrinsic execution gas and TX_MAX_TOTAL_GAS_LIMIT, which do not depend on CPSB. Uncertainty: EIP-2780 is not supplied. If any CPSB-derived per-authorization cost were part of intrinsic gas, validity boundaries would shift (level 1).
New block / header fields	None.	eip.md · Specification No header fields.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	None.	eip.md · Specification No schema changes.
Block syncing changes	No change to RLP decoding or structural validation.	supporting/eip-8037.md · Block-level gas accounting The gas_used validity rule is defined by EIP-8037 and is unchanged in form.
New fork activation mechanism	Rule/constant selection only; no state migration.	eip.md · Specification Constant selection at the fork boundary only.
Engine API changes	No Engine API change.	eip.md · Specification No API changes.
Transition-tool interface changes	Selecting a fork-specific constant does not change the t8n interface.	eip.md · Specification Only a constant changes; no inputs or outputs change.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Baseline tests need no new assertion; changed values count as rework under PAT.	eip.md · Specification No new outputs, fields or logs.
New test-framework primitives	The baseline already has a CPSB parameter for state gas. A new per-fork value is a parameter value, not a primitive.	eip.md · Specification — CPSB \| TBD Only a new parameter value; no new abstraction is required. Uncertainty: If baseline helpers hard-code 1530 rather than reading it per fork, a local extension (level 1) may be needed. That is an implementation detail with no evidence either way.
Cryptography	No cryptographic changes.	eip.md · Specification No cryptographic content.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8368.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob 7be6293988 · sha256 5092c19d1dff
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-8368.yaml · sha256 725bb0d6e38f
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP: 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

The LLM applied checklist revision 3 and the human reviewers revision 2 to EIP-8368 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.

LLM11Low

Human16Medium

Δ total−5Tiers differ: Low vs Medium

Criteria23/28agree exactly · 4 differ by 1 · 1 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Cross-EIP interactions (−3), Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (−1), Edge/boundary conditions (−1), Modified system contracts (+1), Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus (−1)

Show differences only (5 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Cross-EIP interactions	1	4	−3	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The target changes one EIP-8037 parameter. Checks confirm that every EIP-8037-derived cost and the system-call limit use the new value, and that the reservoir spill points shift consistently. These are local compatibility checks rather than a new coupled behavior. 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 Contract rules and code are unchanged. One input convention changes indirectly: the system call's gas limit and reservoir, along with the state-gas charged for system-contract SSTOREs. Human The system-transaction reservoir re-derives from the constant; contract code unchanged.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	3	4	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM A single common change (the CPSB value) alters the expected gas used, balances, reservoir/spill amounts and OOG boundaries for ordinary cases in several distinct baseline families: SSTORE, value-bearing CALL to new accounts, CREATE/CREATE2 and code deposit, SELFDESTRUCT beneficiaries, 7702 authorizations, contract-creation transactions, block gas_used/base fee, and system calls. 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.
Edge/boundary conditions	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM One boundary-sensitive mechanism, state-gas charge magnitude, changes value. This moves the exact-gas OOG, spill and contract-size boundaries. No new boundary rule is introduced. 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 Every CPSB-dependent consensus outcome (charges, gas used, balances, block gas_used) cannot be fixed until the value is agreed. This is a localized but decisive omission in an otherwise defined mechanism. It does not make previously unobservable behavior visible, so level 3 does not apply. 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 None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM These are gas-only changes, which the template excludes from this criterion. Human No result changes, only prices.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None added. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM CPSB only scales state-gas charges. The execution-gas accounting rules and parameters are unchanged. When state gas spills into gas_left, a different CPSB moves gas_left, but that effect belongs to state-gas accounting. 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 No instruction's state-access or charge ordering changes. Human No ordering changes, only the size of a charge.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas rule changes. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM This matches level 1 exactly: only an existing state-byte rate changes. The reservoir model, spill and refill mechanisms are unchanged. 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 No new refund mechanism is added. Refill amounts scale with CPSB, but the mechanism itself is unchanged. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM State-gas charges are runtime charges, so a different CPSB does not change transaction validity. 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 None. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No change to RLP decoding or structural validation. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Rule/constant selection only; no state migration. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No Engine API change. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Selecting a fork-specific constant does not change the t8n interface. Human The constant flows through the existing interface.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Baseline tests need no new assertion; changed values count as rework under PAT. Human No new assertion lands on unrelated tests.
New test-framework primitives	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The baseline already has a CPSB parameter for state gas. A new per-fork value is a parameter value, not a primitive. Human The EIP-8037 fork API (`cost_per_state_byte`) already exists; activation is one override.
Security risks	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Changed conditions are local: state-growth DoS bounds, the size of refill-driven gas_left jumps, and contract-size limits. They can be checked without changing other components' assumptions. 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	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The worst-case bound on state bytes written per block changes with CPSB and the new gas limit. Renewed component-level benchmarking of state-write-heavy blocks is warranted, but no new resource coupling is introduced. 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.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic changes. 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 · 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.