The sentences

For gamestate which is tracked in a specific place (such as a wiki page), any alteration of that gamestate as a result of a Soul’s action is (and can only be) applied by editing that data in that place

and

The wiki merely represents the Gamestate tracked there, and is not the same thing. In the event that the Gamestate and its representations are different, any Soul may correct the representations to comply with the Gamestate

suggest different conceptions of the relationship between gamestate and its representations. If gamestate can ONLY change by updating the representation, then the gamestate and its representation should NEVER diverge (unless the divergence occurs through some non-action, but it’s hard to imagine what that might plausibly be). As it stands, there are numerous problems with saying that the gamestate CAN ONLY change through editing its representation, because a lot of the rules, including this paragraph, assume that the change and the update may occur at different points in time. For example, Rule 1.1 states that “If the Ruleset does not properly reflect all legal changes that have been made to it, any Soul may update it to do so,” presuming that the wiki update not only follows but is legally authorised by the proposal that caused the rule change.

This proposal therefore favours the interpretation that the gamestate and its representations can diverge. There is an obvious problem with this, being that a change might go unnoticed and therefore not be made by anyone to the representation for a long period. Therefore, someone relying on the representation alone might be led astray. For example, an admin might forget to update the wiki to reflect a rules change, so anyone reading the ruleset would be getting an inaccurate representation of the rules. However, the corresponding problem exists in the opposite case. Once a proposal is enacted, it is perfectly reasonable for players to assume that the stated effects of that proposal have in fact taken effect; it seems just as problematic to say that they would be wrong if the admin had, for instance, made a typo in an update.

To give another example, suppose that a proposal was enacted that would increase everyone’s Bucks by 1. My Bucks would go from 10 to 11. However, the enacting admin fails to update my Bucks, leaving them at 10. I then go to buy a Spanner for 5 Bucks, updating my Bucks to 5. According to the “changing the representation changes the gamestate” interpretation, my purchase of the Spanner would be illegal, since the proper adjustment (setting my Bucks to what should be its true value of 6) was not made to the gamestate. In fact, every subsequent action changing my Bucks would be illegal, until the error was caught and fixed. This is a trivial example, but it is conceivable that days or even weeks of dynastic play might be invalidated by a simple accounting error of this sort. This is presumably the opposite of the intention of this paragraph, According to the “representation is different from the gamestate” interpretation, on the other hand, the fix is simple: the in-itself unproblematic purchase of the Spanner takes effect when I updated my Bucks to 5, and then anyone who notices that I’m short 1 Buck can simply add it to my total later. No actions are invalidated.

CfJs, naturally, could be used to resolve cases where divergences between gamestate and its representation are particularly significant, but the vast majority of such divergences are easily and unproblematically fixed.