EIP complexity assessment

EIP-8372: Normalized state 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 16

Human Draft PRscore 20 · Checklist revision 2· ethspecs/pm #110 (draft)

LLM · Checklist revision 32026-10-08 · Opus 5.5 · snapshot · 16 Human · Checklist revision 2Draft PR · 20 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-8372 changes EIP-8037's two-dimensional gas model. It replaces CPSB with a new value (TBD) and adds STATE_GAS_LIMIT_SCALE (TBD, as a percentage over a denominator of 100). The raw state-gas limit becomes block_gas_limit * SCALE // 100, and that value replaces the block gas limit in EIP-8037's per-transaction state_gas_available check. At block level, raw block_state_gas_used is normalized (× 100 // SCALE) before taking the max with execution gas to form header gas_used, and two validity assertions are added. The EIP adds no transaction or header fields and leaves the reservoir model, transaction-level accounting and receipts unchanged.

16MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v3
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Yes — 5 criteria affected
Plausible range: 10–18 (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.

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 CPSB and STATE_GAS_LIMIT_SCALE values are TBD, so the size of gas re-baselining and of capacity changes cannot be fixed. The formulas themselves are fully specified.

Plausible total

10–18
recorded score 16 · plausible tiers Low, Medium

Affected criteria (5)

Modified system contracts (1)
State gas accounting changes (2)
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (3)
Performance risks (1)
Edge/boundary conditions (2)

Unresolved questions at the cutoff (4)

What are the final CPSB and STATE_GAS_LIMIT_SCALE values?
Does EIP-8037's SYSTEM_CALL_GAS_LIMIT formula apply with the new CPSB?
With SCALE < 100, is it intended that transactions with tx.gas above the raw state limit (but within the execution limit) can never be included?
Is the floor-division rounding in normalized gas_used, and its effect on base-fee updates near the target, intended?

Notable ambiguities noted by the assessor (3)

EIP-8037 checks the full tx.gas against state_gas_available. With SCALE < 100 this tightens transaction inclusion for execution-heavy transactions with large gas limits.
The two block assertions (raw state gas <= scaled limit, and normalized gas_used <= gas limit) largely overlap, with only rounding differences.
The target does not explicitly state the effect of the new CPSB on system-call gas or on EIP-8037's derived constants.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8372 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Patterns affecting pre-existing testsUnder-specified	3	One common change (the CPSB value, plus normalized block gas_used) alters expected gas results across distinct families: SSTORE, contract creation and code deposit, value calls to new accounts, SELFDESTRUCT, 7702 authorizations, reservoir and transaction-gas boundaries, system calls, and block gas_used/base-fee tests. This meets level 3.	eip.md · Parameters – "CPSB \| TBD" A new CPSB changes the expected state-gas cost of every state-creating operation. supporting/eip-8037.md · Parameter changes CPSB drives costs for CREATE/CREATE2, code deposit, CALL to a new account, SELFDESTRUCT, SSTORE set, and 7702 empty-account/auth-base charges. 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 allotment and reservoir depend on CPSB. eip.md · Block-level gas accounting Header gas_used, and therefore base-fee expectations, change for state-dominated blocks. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Values are TBD. If CPSB stayed equal to the baseline and SCALE = 100, the rework would largely vanish. Tests parameterized on fork constants reduce the manual effort but not the behavioral re-baselining.
State gas accounting changesUnder-specified	2	Beyond the CPSB rate change (level 1), the block-level state-gas budget and how it is allocated change through the scaled limit and normalization. That is a budget-allocation change (level 2). Charging sites, the reservoir, and spill between the reservoir and gas_left are unchanged, so level 3 is not met.	eip.md · Parameters CPSB is replaced with a new TBD value, which rescales every state-gas charge. eip.md · Transaction validation – "state_gas_limit = block_env.block_gas_limit * STATE_GAS_LIMIT_SCALE // STATE_GAS_LIMIT_SCALE_DENOMINATOR" The block state-gas budget becomes a scaled raw limit instead of the block gas limit. eip.md · Block-level gas accounting – "normalized_block_state_gas_used" Raw state gas is normalized before it enters header gas_used. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: If the chosen SCALE were 100, only the CPSB change would remain (level 1).
Edge/boundary conditionsUnder-specified	2	Several boundary-sensitive rules change: the scaled per-transaction state-gas availability check, the raw block state-gas limit, normalized gas_used rounding against the gas limit and gas target (which flips which dimension is max and moves the base fee), and SCALE above vs below 100. The dimensions can mostly be tested one at a time, so this is level 2 rather than an elevated matrix.	eip.md · Transaction validation Transaction inclusion is bounded by tx.gas <= scaled state_gas_limit - block_state_gas_used, with floor division. eip.md · Block-level gas accounting – "assert block_output.block_state_gas_used <= state_gas_limit" The block state-gas assertion applies to raw state gas, and the gas_used assertion applies to the normalized, floor-divided value. eip.md · Security Considerations – "up to integer rounding" Rounding at the limits is acknowledged. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Whether the interaction between SCALE direction, rounding and the binding dimension forms an elevated matrix is debatable.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	Coordinated cases with EIP-8037 behavior are needed: the reservoir/tx.gas inclusion check against the scaled limit, the max between execution gas (including the calldata floor) and normalized state gas, base-fee updates, and system-call reservoirs under the new CPSB. EIP-7999 and EIP-8075 are cited only and do not interact. Level 2.	eip.md · Abstract – "This EIP modifies EIP-8037" The target directly re-parameterizes EIP-8037's validation and block accounting. supporting/eip-8037.md · Block-level gas accounting EIP-8037 defines the calldata floor in the execution dimension, the base-fee delta from gas_used, and EIP-7778 integration, all of which interact with normalized state gas. eip.md · Rationale – "manual, one-time analogue of EIP-8075" EIP-7999 and EIP-8075 are cited only as motivation or analogues. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Interactions with base-fee (1559), calldata-floor (7623/7976), 7825 and 7778 behavior pass through EIP-8037's text. Those EIP documents are not supplied. Interacting EIPs: EIP-8037
Modified system contractsUnder-specified	1	Contract rules are unchanged. Indirectly, one input convention changes: the system call's gas allotment and state-gas reservoir follow the new CPSB. That is level 1.	supporting/eip-8037.md · System contracts and system transactions SYSTEM_CALL_GAS_LIMIT and its reservoir share are derived from CPSB. eip.md · Parameters CPSB is changed. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: The target does not mention system calls. The effect follows from EIP-8037's formula, assuming it still applies after re-parameterization.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	Block-level gas_used, which feeds the gas limit check and the base-fee update, is computed by a changed rule. This is a change to an existing block accounting rule. No new execution-gas charging mechanism is added, and opcode execution-gas costs are unchanged. That fits level 1.	eip.md · Block-level gas accounting Header gas_used is now max(block_execution_gas_used, normalized_block_state_gas_used), with gas_used <= block_gas_limit asserted. supporting/eip-8037.md · Block-level gas accounting – "gas_used_delta = parent.gas_used - parent.gas_target" The base-fee update uses header gas_used, so changing how gas_used is computed changes block-level settlement for all gas. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The change mainly concerns state gas. Treating the change to the shared gas_used/base-fee settlement as an execution-gas rule change is a judgement call; 0 is defensible.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	1	Only an existing bound changes. No new validation dependency or sequence is added.	eip.md · Transaction validation The bound in the existing tx.gas <= state_gas_available check becomes the scaled limit. supporting/eip-8037.md · Transaction validation – "tx.gas <= state_gas_available" This is the existing condition being modified. Confidence: High Uncertainty: With SCALE < 100, transactions whose tx.gas exceeds the raw state limit cannot be included even though they fit the execution limit. Tests should cover this, but it remains a local bound change.
New test-framework primitives	1	The existing fork gas-schedule and block-gas helpers need a local extension: a scale parameter and normalized gas_used/base-fee computation. No new abstraction is needed.	eip.md · Transaction validation; Block-level gas accounting Tests need the scaled state-gas limit and normalized gas_used computed from fork constants. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: No framework is supplied. This is judged from architectural need only.
Security risks	1	The changed conditions are the state-capacity bound and the block validity limits under normalization, which can be checked locally. Other components' trust assumptions do not change.	eip.md · Security Considerations The main risk is miscalibration. The state-byte capacity bound must hold up to rounding. Confidence: Medium
Performance risksUnder-specified	1	If the new CPSB/SCALE shift worst-case state bytes per block, the existing state-creation-heavy workloads need re-benchmarking. Execution and state gas already have separate limits under EIP-8037, so no new resource coupling arises. Level 1.	eip.md · Security Considerations – "the maximum state-byte capacity remains approximately invariant across calibrations, up to integer rounding" Worst-case state bytes per block are tied to the scaled limit and CPSB. eip.md · Rationale – "baseline_cpsb = expected_block_gas_limit * blocks_per_year // (2 * target_state_growth_per_year)" The baseline can differ from EIP-8037's derivation, changing worst-case state-growth capacity. Confidence: Low Uncertainty: Depends on the TBD values. If capacity is truly invariant, this could be 0. A large SCALE could require block-level stress tests (level 2).
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	1	Expected values cannot be fixed until the TBD constants are chosen. The rules themselves have a single interpretation, so there are no competing normative outcomes. Level 1.	eip.md · Parameters – "CPSB \| TBD", "STATE_GAS_LIMIT_SCALE \| TBD" Both consensus constants are unspecified. eip.md · Block-level gas accounting The formulas are otherwise fully specified. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: Whether EIP-8037's system-call formula picks up the new CPSB is not stated, but the formula implies it does.

Show 17 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 3)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	None.	eip.md · Specification No opcodes are added.
Modified opcodes	Only gas changes. Semantics are unchanged.	eip.md · Parameters Only the CPSB rate changes, which is a gas-only effect on state-creating opcodes.
Added precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification No precompiles are added.
Modified precompiles	None.	eip.md · Specification Precompiles are not touched.
Added system contracts	None introduced.	eip.md · Specification No contracts are introduced.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No instruction's state-access or charge ordering changes.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility – "Transaction formats, the EIP-8037 reservoir model, transaction-level gas accounting, and receipt semantics remain unchanged" Opcode-level charging and access timing are unchanged.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas rule changes.	eip.md · Specification Only CPSB, the state-gas limit and block gas_used normalization are specified; blob gas is not mentioned.
New EVM gas refund	No refund mechanism is added.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Transaction-level gas accounting, including refunds, is unchanged.
New transaction types	None.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility – "Transaction formats ... remain unchanged" No new transaction type.
New block / header fields	None.	eip.md · Block-level gas accounting – "No new block header field is introduced." No header member is added.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No schema or codec changes.	eip.md · Abstract – "No new transaction or block-header fields are introduced." Schemas are unchanged.
Block syncing changes	No RLP decoding or structural validation rule changes. The execution-derived checks are ordinary execution-rule changes.	eip.md · Block-level gas accounting The new assertions are post-execution accounting checks. Header structure is unchanged.
New fork activation mechanism	Only constants are selected at activation. No state migration.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility – "Blocks before activation are unaffected." Activation only switches constants and rules.
Engine API changes	No Engine API field or endpoint changes.	eip.md · Abstract There are no new fields. The payload format is unaffected. Uncertainty: A reviewer could treat the changed computation of payload gasUsed as a meaning change (level 1).
Transition-tool interface changes	The new constants are fork rules, not interface inputs. gas_used keeps its field identity. No interface change is established.	eip.md · Block-level gas accounting – "No new block header field is introduced." Outputs keep the same fields. Only the computed gas_used value changes. Uncertainty: No transition-tool documentation is supplied. If the tool reports raw state gas used separately, or normalized gas_used counts as a semantic change, level 1 applies.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	Existing outputs only change value. That is rework, not a new assertion.	eip.md · Abstract – "No new transaction or block-header fields are introduced." There is no new output to assert.
Cryptography	No cryptographic change.	eip.md · Specification There is no cryptographic content.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@6dac5e7491 EIPS/eip-8372.md committed 2026-10-07 · information cutoff 2026-10-07T22:23:55Z
Current master · File history · blob d5bd301b80 · sha256 db7eae2b26e1
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-8372.yaml · sha256 f827e447008f
Supporting documents supplied with the EIP: supporting/eip-7999.md, supporting/eip-8037.md, supporting/eip-8075.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

20MediumMedium

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 #110 (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

EVM Gas rule changes3
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests3
Edge/boundary conditions3
State gas accounting changes2

Criterion breakdown

EIP-8372 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
EVM Gas rule changes	3	The block-level rule changes: raw state gas answers to a scaled limit and is normalized before `gas_used = max(execution, normalized state)`. Measured: an EELS prototype (proportional contraction, `CPSB` 765 / scale 50) flips 796 fixture executions across the EIP-8037/7778/2780/8038 gas suites and the ported statics.	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	3	Measured: 796 executions across 155 functions spanning diverse categories — EIP-8037 header pins, capacity-bound scenarios, the 2780/7778/8038 gas suites, and 1530-era ported statics. Sixteen shared header sites were updated fork-correctly; the remainder re-derives when the real calibration constants are chosen, and the whole set re-baselines on every recalibration.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	3	The scaled-capacity admission boundary, integer normalization rounding, and the dominant-dimension switchover are each boundary-prone, and the switchover needs an elevated case count: the `max(execution, normalized)` crossover must be pinned at equality and one raw unit either side, non-divisor scales collapse rounding ranges of raw values into one normalized value, mid-transaction reservoir-to-spill crossings move with the grant, and each boundary is observed twice (raw receipts, normalized header).	—
State gas accounting changes	2	The block-level state-gas budget is modified (scaled to a share of the block gas limit) and `CPSB` recalibrates with it; the spill path and charging sites are untouched.	—
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	2	With a scale below 100, the EIP-8037 admission rule (`tx.gas <= state_gas_available`) silently caps every transaction's gas limit at the scaled share of the block gas limit — an unstated consequence, and the dominant blast-radius mechanism until tooling learns the bound (31,873 fixture executions in the prototype's first fill). Existing validity tests need limited, mechanical updates.	—
Security risks	2	The arithmetic lands in a consensus observable: header `gas_used` is recomputed through the normalization fold, so a rounding or crossover divergence between clients is a chain split, warranting targeted review and fuzzing across the boundary ranges. Parameter miscalibration remains the economic failure mode, fixable only by a later fork — flagged by the EIP itself.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	2	A delta on EIP-8037's block accounting, interacting with EIP-7825 (the admission-cap consequence, measured) and EIP-7778's block-accounting suites — limited, mechanical coordination.	—
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	2	Two consensus-relevant behaviors are unstated in the EIP but localized: the sub-100-scale admission cap (needs the comparison re-anchored or the ceiling stated) and receipt gas totals staying raw while the header normalizes. Clients need agreement on both before vectors are baselined; the TBD constants are churn already counted under patterns.	—
New test-framework primitives	1	Existing primitives extend: `block_state_gas_limit()` / `normalized_block_state_gas()` fork accessors (identity pre-EIP), and the framework's implicit transaction gas limit learns the scaled capacity bound.	—

Show 19 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified opcodes	No rationale recorded.	—
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	—
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
Modified system contracts	No rationale recorded.	—
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No rationale recorded.	—
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	—
New EVM gas refund	No rationale recorded.	—
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	—
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	No rationale recorded.	—
New invariant on pre-existing tests	No rationale recorded.	—
Performance risks	No rationale recorded.	—
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 #110: Add EIP-8372 complexity assessment · checklist at bcbc0c2a77 · updated 2026-08-24
blob c8fd40e285 · sha256 163ca5d2a25a
Research record: research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-8372.yaml · sha256 ac8d9777bb09

The LLM applied checklist revision 3 and the human reviewers revision 2 to EIP-8372 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.

LLM16Medium

Human20Medium

Δ total−4Same tier

Criteria21/28agree exactly · 6 differ by 1 · 1 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: EVM Gas rule changes (−2), Edge/boundary conditions (−1), Modified system contracts (+1), New or modified transaction validity mechanisms (−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
EVM Gas rule changes	1	3	−2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Block-level gas_used, which feeds the gas limit check and the base-fee update, is computed by a changed rule. This is a change to an existing block accounting rule. No new execution-gas charging mechanism is added, and opcode execution-gas costs are unchanged. That fits level 1. Human The block-level rule changes: raw state gas answers to a scaled limit and is normalized before `gas_used = max(execution, normalized state)`. Measured: an EELS prototype (proportional contraction, `CPSB` 765 / scale 50) flips 796 fixture executions across the EIP-8037/7778/2780/8038 gas suites and the ported statics.
Modified system contracts	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Contract rules are unchanged. Indirectly, one input convention changes: the system call's gas allotment and state-gas reservoir follow the new CPSB. That is level 1. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Only an existing bound changes. No new validation dependency or sequence is added. Human With a scale below 100, the EIP-8037 admission rule (`tx.gas <= state_gas_available`) silently caps every transaction's gas limit at the scaled share of the block gas limit — an unstated consequence, and the dominant blast-radius mechanism until tooling learns the bound (31,873 fixture executions in the prototype's first fill). Existing validity tests need limited, mechanical updates.
Security risks	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The changed conditions are the state-capacity bound and the block validity limits under normalization, which can be checked locally. Other components' trust assumptions do not change. Human The arithmetic lands in a consensus observable: header `gas_used` is recomputed through the normalization fold, so a rounding or crossover divergence between clients is a chain split, warranting targeted review and fuzzing across the boundary ranges. Parameter miscalibration remains the economic failure mode, fixable only by a later fork — flagged by the EIP itself.
Performance risks	1	0	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM If the new CPSB/SCALE shift worst-case state bytes per block, the existing state-creation-heavy workloads need re-benchmarking. Execution and state gas already have separate limits under EIP-8037, so no new resource coupling arises. Level 1. Human No rationale recorded.
Edge/boundary conditions	2	3	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Several boundary-sensitive rules change: the scaled per-transaction state-gas availability check, the raw block state-gas limit, normalized gas_used rounding against the gas limit and gas target (which flips which dimension is max and moves the base fee), and SCALE above vs below 100. The dimensions can mostly be tested one at a time, so this is level 2 rather than an elevated matrix. Human The scaled-capacity admission boundary, integer normalization rounding, and the dominant-dimension switchover are each boundary-prone, and the switchover needs an elevated case count: the `max(execution, normalized)` crossover must be pinned at equality and one raw unit either side, non-divisor scales collapse rounding ranges of raw values into one normalized value, mid-transaction reservoir-to-spill crossings move with the grant, and each boundary is observed twice (raw receipts, normalized header).
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	1	2	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM Expected values cannot be fixed until the TBD constants are chosen. The rules themselves have a single interpretation, so there are no competing normative outcomes. Level 1. Human Two consensus-relevant behaviors are unstated in the EIP but localized: the sub-100-scale admission cap (needs the comparison re-anchored or the ceiling stated) and receipt gas totals staying raw while the header normalizes. Clients need agreement on both before vectors are baselined; the TBD constants are churn already counted under patterns.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Only gas changes. Semantics are unchanged. Human No rationale recorded.
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 introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No instruction's state-access or charge ordering changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas rule changes. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Beyond the CPSB rate change (level 1), the block-level state-gas budget and how it is allocated change through the scaled limit and normalization. That is a budget-allocation change (level 2). Charging sites, the reservoir, and spill between the reservoir and gas_left are unchanged, so level 3 is not met. Human The block-level state-gas budget is modified (scaled to a share of the block gas limit) and `CPSB` recalibrates with it; the spill path and charging sites are untouched.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No refund mechanism is added. Human No rationale recorded.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM None. Human No rationale recorded.
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 No schema or codec changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No RLP decoding or structural validation rule changes. The execution-derived checks are ordinary execution-rule changes. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Only constants are selected at activation. No state migration. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No Engine API field or endpoint changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The new constants are fork rules, not interface inputs. gas_used keeps its field identity. No interface change is established. Human No rationale recorded.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	3	3	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM One common change (the CPSB value, plus normalized block gas_used) alters expected gas results across distinct families: SSTORE, contract creation and code deposit, value calls to new accounts, SELFDESTRUCT, 7702 authorizations, reservoir and transaction-gas boundaries, system calls, and block gas_used/base-fee tests. This meets level 3. Human Measured: 796 executions across 155 functions spanning diverse categories — EIP-8037 header pins, capacity-bound scenarios, the 2780/7778/8038 gas suites, and 1530-era ported statics. Sixteen shared header sites were updated fork-correctly; the remainder re-derives when the real calibration constants are chosen, and the whole set re-baselines on every recalibration.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Existing outputs only change value. That is rework, not a new assertion. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The existing fork gas-schedule and block-gas helpers need a local extension: a scale parameter and normalized gas_used/base-fee computation. No new abstraction is needed. Human Existing primitives extend: `block_state_gas_limit()` / `normalized_block_state_gas()` fork accessors (identity pre-EIP), and the framework's implicit transaction gas limit learns the scaled capacity bound.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic change. Human No rationale recorded.
Cross-EIP interactions	2	2	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Coordinated cases with EIP-8037 behavior are needed: the reservoir/tx.gas inclusion check against the scaled limit, the max between execution gas (including the calldata floor) and normalized state gas, base-fee updates, and system-call reservoirs under the new CPSB. EIP-7999 and EIP-8075 are cited only and do not interact. Level 2. Human A delta on EIP-8037's block accounting, interacting with EIP-7825 (the admission-cap consequence, measured) and EIP-7778's block-accounting suites — limited, mechanical coordination.

Compare EIP-8372 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.