Pre-vote onchain proposal calldata simulation checklist answers one narrow evergreen question: simulate a governance proposal's onchain effects using a local fork or Tenderly before voting, and verify that the described outcome matches the executed contract calls. The goal is a repeatable decision rule, not a prediction, promotion, or broad market recap.
Owner fit: Radar treats governance simulation as a pre-vote discovery and verification step.
Define the decision first
Write the specific action that pre-vote onchain proposal calldata simulation checklist is allowed to change. Name the exact market, account type, contract, dapp, route, or lineup state. Set the maximum exposure in advance, and define the condition that forces a deliberate pass. Without a named action and a pre-written pass condition, the comparison or checklist becomes a narrative exercise rather than a repeatable operating control.
The decision should be narrow enough that a single checklist can answer it. If the answer requires two different rulebooks, two different market types, or two different account structures, split the decision into two separate guides. Each guide must answer exactly one question with exactly one set of first-party sources.
Read the mechanism before the headline number
Governance proposals describe their intent in natural language while executing onchain calls that may differ from the description. A proposal can include multiple actions, delegate calls, upgrades, fund transfers, or parameter changes whose combined effect is not obvious from the title and summary.
Interface labels, marketing descriptions, and summary tables often simplify the actual execution flow. The official rulebook, API documentation, contract source, or league operations manual defines what actually happens when the decision is executed. The difference between the simplified label and the real mechanism is where comparison value lives.
Failure modes that create false confidence
Voting based on the proposal description without simulating the calldata can approve actions whose scope exceeds the stated intent. A second error is ignoring that a proposal may interact with upgradeable contracts whose implementation can change between proposal submission and execution.
The most common failure is treating the visible metric as the complete picture. A second failure is executing the comparison or checklist after the decision is already live, which turns verification into rationalisation. A third failure is filling unknown fields with assumptions because the worksheet demands an answer. An empty field that is labelled unknown is better protection than a filled field with unverified data.
Worked decision example
A proposal claims to adjust a fee parameter. The simulation reveals it also modifies an access-control role and transfers tokens from the treasury to a new address. The checklist reports every onchain effect before the vote is cast.
The example is useful because it forces the user to choose before the outcome is known. If the evidence is incomplete at decision time, the disciplined answer is to wait. A worked example should name a specific market, a specific state, and a specific action, not a general category of situations.
When the correct answer is to wait
abstain or vote against when the simulated onchain effects materially differ from the proposal description or when the execution path cannot be fully traced
Waiting is a legitimate operating decision. It preserves capital, keeps the decision framework intact, and avoids converting an unknown into a false choice. The pass condition should be written before the opportunity appears so that urgency does not override the checklist.
Verification sheet
Use the following checklist from first-party sources, not from memory or a screenshot. Fill every field before committing exposure. If a field cannot be filled from an official source, mark it unknown and treat the entire decision as incomplete until the source is available.
- Read the full proposal calldata and target contracts.
- Simulate execution on a local fork or Tenderly.
- Trace every external call, transfer, and state change.
- Verify that upgradeable contract implementations are frozen or audited.
- Compare the simulated effects with the natural-language description.
Write each answer beside its first-party source and timestamp. An unknown field stays unknown; it should not be filled with an assumption simply to complete the worksheet. Review the completed sheet at least once before every new decision, not only when the checklist was first written.
Primary references
These are the first-party rule, technical, or protocol documents used to frame the checklist. Recheck the live version before acting because rules, APIs, and contracts change. A reference that was accurate yesterday may have been updated today, and the difference can change the outcome of the checklist.
Continue this cluster
Continue with related guides in the Governance cluster. Each checklist answers one narrow decision, and together they build a repeatable operating framework that covers more ground than any single guide can.
