The other relevant rule for the cfj is “When an actor has an opponent in a space adjacent to it and and its reaction is to move into or beyond that opponent’s space, the existing reaction ceases to take effect and instead a Shove occurs.”

Hm, I think that this interpretation doesn’t change the outcome; as SB points out, that would simply resolve to being a shove, which is what happened in the current resolution.

I would say that “If multiple Bots occupy the same space, they bpth take Scratch Damage and move one space forwards” takes precedence

So, my logic is as follows:
The evading bot is not considered to be in its space for the purposes of checking if you can move into its space.
Shoving says if you’re in a space adjacent (which was true), and the reaction was to move into that opponent’s space (which is permitted by above line irrespective of whether a bump would otherwise occur or not; after all, no bot is considered to be in the space), then you replace the move with a shove.
Therefore, the movement becomes a shove.

The only way this would be a normal move is if the bot continued to not be in the square for the purposes of applying the shoving rule, but I don’t see that as being supported by the wording of the rules - they only cease to be in the square when checking if you can move into them, but then go back to existing once all the requirements to shove are met.

As much as I hate to vote against it, 

@lendun I think that the Prioritisation rule would suggest otherwise, which is fortunate, as if that interpretation held up then shoving would be impossible under all circumstances and we’d have a much bigger problem on our hands.

I think shoves being impossible to evade is an equally big problem.

They’ll only be impossible to evade until the new rules kick in. Once “Evading a repeal” is in, bots won’t exist for the purposes of the shoving rule, so the normal movement reaction will allow standard non-shove movement through an evading bot.

That is, evading bots won’t exist for it I mean.

@Brendan The question isn’t “what’s the best outcome”, here - this CfJ doesn’t change the rules - it’s “what’s the correct interpretation of the rule as written”, and specifically “was Bout 18 resolved correctly under those rules as written”.

as I’m increasingly of the opinion that I interpreted the rule correctly, and that if it is ‘supposed’ to mean something else then it needs to be changed by proposal; this CfJ will leave me in the position where I don’t know how to interpret half the ruleset