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

concurrent-systemstoctoucweoptimistic-concurrency-controlevent-sourcingunverified

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.

Update 2026-11-02: a second, independent Tier 1 primary — Tsafrir, Hertz, Wagner & Da Silva's 2008 ACM Transactions on Storage paper, read directly — corroborates this finding (claim-tsafrir-2008-cites-tmp-gc-sweep-toctou-example, claim-tsafrir-2008-toctou-survey-excludes-occ-event-sourcing). Different author group and different venue from CWE-367/362: this is a second independent root (independent_roots: 2), not a restatement of the first. Two independent sources agreeing is corroboration of an absence within the literature searched so far, not proof that no Tier 1-2 source anywhere makes the OCC/event-sourcing prescription — the [unverified -- could not confirm or deny after search] flag stays open.