ERC-173 vs ERC-8199

Contract Ownership Standard compared with Sandboxed Smart Wallet.

Overlapping, neither contains the other

1 shared · 3 vs 7 functions · 33% of the smaller surface

ERC-8199 lists ERC-173 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (1)

0x8da5cb5b owner()

`0x01ffc9a7`	`supportsInterface(bytes4)`
`0xf2fde38b`	`transferOwnership(address)`

`0x531ef90a`	`executeFromOwner((address,uint256,bytes)[])`
`0xeac3fda4`	`getAgents()`
`0xf9287c65`	`invokeAgentExec((address,uint256,bytes)[],bytes)`
`0x554c4f4b`	`isAgentActive(address)`
`0x9495d5db`	`registerAgents((address,uint256,(address,bytes)[])[])`
`0xdfe97518`	`removeAgents((address,uint256,(address,bytes)[])[])`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-173 · ERC-8199