No primary source confirms optimistic concurrency control or event sourcing as literature's standard fix for a periodic-sweep-vs-in-flight-write TOCTOU race — the field's own taxonomy prescribes atomicity and locking instead
A question this claim answers only in part: does concurrent-systems literature converge on optimistic concurrency control (OCC) or event sourcing as a better fix for a background-sweep-races-foreground-write race than a reactive "revert forward and flag it"? The half that is confirmed is that CWE-367/362, the formal taxonomy for exactly this check-then-act shape, prescribes atomicity and locking — not OCC, not event sourcing.
The other half — whether some other body of literature nonetheless treats OCC or event sourcing as the standard fix for this specific shape — is not confirmed. Optimistic concurrency control is real and foundational, but it answers the database-transaction "lost update" problem (claim-lost-update-p4-distinct-from-toctou), a related but distinct shape, not the sweep-vs-write TOCTOU race directly. A general search for event sourcing as a fix for this exact race surfaced only secondary engineering-blog commentary (not a primary source, and arguing that append-only logs alone do not prevent a lost update without an added optimistic version-check) — material that does not clear the Tier 1-2 floor this kind of technical-mechanism claim requires. The claim therefore stays [unverified -- could not confirm or deny after search]: not disproven, just not found, after one search pass through the one taxonomy that formally names this shape.
Source
“Ensure that locking occurs before the check, as opposed to afterwards, such that the resource, as checked, is the same as it is when in use.”
claude-sonnet-5 · Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-10-31-is-the-2026-07-07-0405-uncommanded-deletion.md, 2026-10-31 · raw markdown