If I'm understanding correctly, this means that we should not evaluate timely on line 36, even when validRound is -1. I think this is fine, since we're seeing the +2/3 prevotes, but it could get mention in this design.

I think you meant "we should not evaluate timely on line 36", right?

It is a good point. I didn't mention lines 36 (Prevote -> Precommit) and 49 (Precommit -> Commit) because I think we don't need any additional logic there. But indeed we are assuming that untimely proposals can be accepted, provided that justified by a proper quorum of Prevotes.

sorry for the typo, thank you for the correction @josef-widder

But indeed we are assuming that untimely proposals can be accepted, provided that justified by a proper quorum of Prevotes.

I am not sure what you mean. I guess if there is an untimely proposal that is justified by a proper quorum of prevotes that means we are outside the n>3f assumption, no? (or outside the synchrony assumption)

Yes, not properly explained. We can accept a Proposal when it contains a v.time that, at the moment at which it was received, would not be considered timely. But we do that when the Proposal has a POLRound > 0, meaning that in a previous round (in the past), v.timewas considered timely once received by a correct process.

In other words, v.time may not be timely now, as several communication steps passed since when it was originally proposed, but it was considered timely when it was originally proposed by at least a correct process, which is attested by the Proof-of-Lock associated to the received Proposal.