And I was completely wrong. I was focusing on the entirely wrong internal replication. When replacing A with data from B, we're not interested in the push replication from A -> B. What we want is the push replication from B -> A. Then when we get an update seq from A we can find our update_seq on B that has all the updates *from B*.

My way was backwards. I was attempting to figure out where in B had all updates from A. While that may be interesting for something its not interesting here. Given the update on B that has all updates from A doesn't guarantee that we send the client all updates they haven't seen because B may have updates from some other node C that were not pushed to A before A replicated back to B.

So bottom line is to make sure that we understand the direction of internal replication we're looking at. Gonna comment the crap out of this function in the refactor now (after reverting it to the proper behavior).