Consider this process in which the process is instructed to atomically await for work, dequeue an element from the input q and append it to the output queue doing this indefinitely until q_in empty:process Dequeue \in 1..1
begin
dequeue:
await q_in /= <<>>;
q_out := q_out \o << Head(q_in) >>;
q_in := Tail(q_in);
goto dequeue;
end process;
Running this with a LTL property,
WorkDone == <>([](q_out=<<1,2,3,4,5>>))
and a good enqueue process (not shown) shows a violation. The violation is a result of stuttering, In fact, the last state in the trackback shows,
/\ i = (2 :> 6)
/\ pc = <<"dequeue", "Done">>
/\ q_in = <<5>>
/\ q_out = <<1, 2, 3, 4>>
which asks the question: since Dequeue is unconditionally instructed to loop back to the await statement whence 5 would be dequeue making q_out <<1,2,3,4,5>> thus satisfying WorkDone, why does TLA+ think it can stutter and think it can stutter with one element left? Are we to interpret this as Dequeue may have "crashed" there?