I would think that is simply the statement that the ordering of timestamps preserves causality? What the "actual point in time" of anything is isn't really rele

I would think that is simply the statement that the ordering of timestamps preserves causality? What the "actual point in time" of anything is isn't really relevant--the question is whether you can show that a given transaction started after another committed, and if so, then you are guaranteed that timestamps assigned to those transactions preserve that ordering.