The observation of this article is spot on! CRDTs are an awesome formal model for distributed data structures, but I was always bothered by the notion that all conflicts must be resolved automatically (hence also the name, conflict-free replicated data type). As the article illustrated, this is a hopeless endeavor. I believe what is needed is a proper structured representation of conflicts, that allows for sharing them and resolving them collaboratively, giving back control to the users and supporting them in the process. One of my favorite papers “Turning Conflicts into Collaboration” [1] makes a compelling argument for this idea.
As part of my ongoing PhD studies, we have developed our own formal model for structured conflict representation, based on lattice theory: “Lazy Merging: From a Potential of Universes to a Universe of Potentials” [2]. Incidentally, it is also a CRDT, but it does not attempt to resolve conflicts automatically. Instead, it represents them within the collaborative documents. Approaching the problem from mathematics allowed us to arrive at a simple conceptual model that can guarantee strong properties, like, e.g., the completeness, minimality, and uniqueness of merges, even after repeated merges of existing conflicts. And merges can be calculates very easily. I always wanted to make a blog post about it, but I never came around to do it.