{"id":"consensus-safety-unverified-across-optimization-variants","text":"Both consensus mechanisms represent inverse optimizations of Multi-Paxos (Raft centralizes proposal authority in a leader, TOB decentralizes it to allow any node to propose), but neither variant's safety has been validated under the asynchronous conditions it is designed for — all protocol tests use deterministic synchronous delivery with no real network I/O, message loss, or reordering.","truth_value":"IN","source":"","source_url":"","source_hash":"","justifications":[{"type":"SL","antecedents":["consensus-architectures-are-inverse-optimizations","protocol-safety-validated-only-under-synchronous-model"],"outlist":[],"label":"Two inverse Paxos optimizations share the same verification gap — both are designed for asynchronous networks but tested exclusively under synchronous simulation"}],"dependents":["consensus-correctness-doubly-unverified"],"metadata":{"last_reviewed":"2026-05-30T09:01:17","review_result":"pass"},"created_at":"","updated_at":"","reviewed_at":"","verified_at":"","retracted_at":"","explanation":{"steps":[{"node":"consensus-safety-unverified-across-optimization-variants","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["consensus-architectures-are-inverse-optimizations","protocol-safety-validated-only-under-synchronous-model"],"label":"Two inverse Paxos optimizations share the same verification gap — both are designed for asynchronous networks but tested exclusively under synchronous simulation"},{"node":"consensus-architectures-are-inverse-optimizations","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["raft-is-multi-paxos-optimization","tob-no-leader-concept","tob-full-paxos-per-slot"],"label":"Leader-based and leaderless consensus are inverse optimizations of Multi-Paxos"},{"node":"raft-is-multi-paxos-optimization","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"tob-no-leader-concept","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"tob-full-paxos-per-slot","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"protocol-safety-validated-only-under-synchronous-model","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["distributed-protocols-simulate-synchronous-delivery","raft-partition-creates-dual-hazard"],"label":"Partition hazards are modeled but only tested under instant delivery — async timing effects remain unvalidated"},{"node":"distributed-protocols-simulate-synchronous-delivery","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["pbft-submit-request-is-synchronous-simulation","bully-synchronous-delivery","lamport-send-delivers-synchronously"],"label":"three independent protocol modules share the same synchronous-delivery simplification"},{"node":"pbft-submit-request-is-synchronous-simulation","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"bully-synchronous-delivery","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"lamport-send-delivers-synchronously","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"raft-partition-creates-dual-hazard","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["raft-stale-leader-accepts-writes","raft-rejoin-forces-election"],"label":"Two partition-related behaviors combine into a scenario where partitions cause both silent data loss AND unnecessary leader disruption on heal"},{"node":"raft-stale-leader-accepts-writes","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"raft-rejoin-forces-election","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"}]}}