ERC-8023 vs ERC-8199

Multi-step Contract Ownership compared with Sandboxed Smart Wallet.

Overlapping, neither contains the other

1 shared · 10 vs 7 functions · 14% of the smaller surface

ERC-8199 lists ERC-8023 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (1)

0x8da5cb5b owner()

`0xb842e87f`	`acceptOwnershipTransfer()`
`0x737293e2`	`cancelPendingOwnershipTransfer()`
`0x15ec3698`	`confirmOwnershipBufferUpdate(uint256)`
`0x3c213957`	`confirmOwnershipTransfer(address)`
`0x0f9f2530`	`getOwnershipTransferBuffer()`
`0xa49421e9`	`initiateOwnershipBufferUpdate(uint256)`
`0xc0b6f561`	`initiateOwnershipTransfer(address)`
`0xe30c3978`	`pendingOwner()`
`0x1af1b0c4`	`preConfirmedOwner()`

`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-8023 · ERC-8199