I keep thinking about one row that was already spent once.

A delegate claimed it, so the entitlement should be gone. Later a batch run surfaces that same row as pending, and finance refuses to release the second payout until settlement evidence can prove the delegated path already consumed it.

That is the distribution fight that stands out to me in TokenTable. Eligibility is not the question anymore. The table is already finalized. The only question now is whether row history and execution evidence can show that this entitlement was spent before another path made it look open again.

For the operator, the job gets brutally narrow. Trace that row. Show the earlier execution. Prove the value is gone. Until then, the second payout can still look legitimate enough to freeze the whole release.

The hardest distribution bug is not a failed payment. It is the entitlement that looks payable again after it was already consumed.

If a delegated claim already spent the row, what stops batch settlement from resurfacing that same entitlement as pending value? #SignDigitalSovereignInfra $SIGN @SignOfficial