The analogy to git comes to mind. To match the above you'd need to be using it with signed commits. In the Git world there's the debate about rewriting vs prese

The analogy to git comes to mind. To match the above you'd need to be using it with signed commits. In the Git world there's the debate about rewriting vs preserving history. The similarities might be actually interesting. In Git users there are two schools of thought, one which advocates preservign history (even if it is messy / involves fixes) because preserving a record of what actually happened is useful [1]. The other insists that a curated version of the history is more important because it is easier to understand in retrospect. [1] There are other downsides in Git history rewriting, such as the blow up you get when attempting to merge / join branches where one has rewritten history and the other not... and the blow up you get when two people attempt to collaborate on a branch in presence of rewriting. These might have accounting analogies too