[tlaplus] Review requested: source-to-TLA+ correspondence and invariants for a small protocol

Hello,

I’m looking for adversarial feedback on a candidate TLA+ model of a bounded state-transition assurance protocol.

I’m attaching a public review package containing the written protocol and its candidate formalization. I would particularly appreciate review from anyone willing to challenge the model rather than assume its intended interpretation is correct.

The main questions are whether:

the TLA+ model faithfully represents the source protocol;
any legal source behavior has
accidentally been excluded;
any behavior forbidden by the source remains reachable;
the invariants are non-v
acuous and appropriately stated;
freeze/recovery, replay, counterfactual isolation, dispute handling, and canonical supersession are modeled correctly;
TLC produces counterexamples or other unexpected behavior.

I am deliberately withholding private test results and previous reviewer outcomes. If something appears ambiguous, I would prefer that ambiguity be reported rather than resolved according to what you think I intended.

I am not asking the group to evaluate broader claims associated with the project—only this bounded protocol/model correspondence.

Any counterexample trace, criticism, or modeling suggestion would be very useful.

Thank you for taking a look,
Austin Simpkins