The comment about not including unknown and pending status is inconsistent with the TLA+ definition of `TxStatuses` which includes `InvalidStatus`. The term "invalid" is not equivalent to "unknown" or "pending", and the comment does not mention "invalid" status.

The comment about views starting at 1 is inconsistent with the TLA+ definition of `Views` as `Nat`, which includes 0. The comment implies that 0 should not be a valid view, but `Nat` allows it.

The comment about sequence numbers starting at 1 is inconsistent with the TLA+ definition of `SeqNums` as `Nat`, which includes 0. The comment implies that 0 should not be a valid sequence number, but `Nat` allows it.

The comment about `TxIDs` starting at (1,1) is inconsistent with the TLA+ definition of `TxIDs` as `Views \X SeqNums`, since both `Views` and `SeqNums` include 0, thus (0,0) is included in `TxIDs` which contradicts the comment.

The comment about `TxStatusReceivedEventIndexes` being indexes into history for events where a committed status is received is inconsistent with the TLA+ definition which selects indexes from `history` where any `TxStatusReceived` event occurs, not just committed ones.

The comment about `RoTxRequestedCommittedEventIndexes` being indexes into history for events where a committed status is received is inconsistent with the TLA+ definition which selects indexes from `history` where `RoTxRequest` events with committed transaction IDs occur, not where a committed status is received.

The comment about read-write transaction responses always following an associated request is inconsistent with the TLA+ definition of `AllRwReceivedIsFirstSentInv` which allows for the possibility of a `RwTxResponse` without a preceding `RwTxRequest` with the same transaction, as it only checks for the existence of any request earlier in the history, not necessarily an associated one.

The comment about abstract ledgers containing only client transactions is inconsistent with the TLA+ definition of `ledgerBranches` which does not explicitly restrict the ledger to client transactions, as there is no check for the type of transaction within the ledger entries.

The comment about each ledger being append-only is inconsistent with the TLA+ definition of `LedgersMonoProp` which uses the `IsPrefix` operator that allows for the ledger to remain unchanged, not strictly append-only as the comment suggests.

The comment about submitting new read-write transactions does not mention any constraints on the transactions, but the TLA+ definition of `RwTxRequestAction` includes a constraint on the next request ID, which is inconsistent with the comment's lack of mention of such a constraint.

The `set-output` command is deprecated and will be disabled soon. Please upgrade to using Environment Files. For more information see: https://github.blog/changelog/2022-10-11-github-actions-deprecating-save-state-and-set-output-commands/

The comment mentions that "Both transaction types are modelled as forward-always transactions" which is consistent with the TLA+ declarations of `RwTxRequest`, `RwTxResponse`, `RoTxRequest`, and `RoTxResponse` as constants, implying that they are always moving forward in the model.

The comment states that the model does not include the unknown and pending status to reduce state space, which is consistent with the TLA+ declarations of `CommittedStatus` and `InvalidStatus` as the only elements of `TxStatuses`.

The comment about views and sequence numbers starting at 1 and using 0 as a null value is consistent with the TLA+ definitions of `Views` and `SeqNums` as `Nat`, since `Nat` includes 0 and all positive integers.

The comment describes a dummy application where read-write transactions append an integer to a list and read-only transactions read the list, which is consistent with the TLA+ definition of `Txs` as `Nat`, representing the list of integers.

The comment about the history being append-only is consistent with the TLA+ definition of `HistoryMonoProp` using the `IsPrefix` operator, which ensures that `history` can only grow.

The comment about the highest commit sequence number is consistent with the TLA+ definition of `CommitSeqNum` using the `Max` operator to find the maximum sequence number from `CommittedTxIDs`.

The comment about indexes being events where the transaction was responded to is consistent with the TLA+ definition of `RwTxResponseCommittedEventIndexes` which selects indexes from `history` where `RwTxResponse` events with committed transaction IDs occur.