Maybe. Unsure. I am not clear in the details of chunk passing during a churn event. How often do elders churn? Churn is an expensive operation in terms of time and bandwidth. Section splits are another opportunity for error correction routines, but the time between splits is likely unbounded.
There are many ways to “skin a cat” (please pardon the expression). The only real point I’ve been trying to make is that there needs to be some upper bound on the amount of time any chunk is “at rest” in order to allow for reasonable error/malice detection/correction intervals on all chunks. An overabundance of redundancy then fixes all ills.
The churn mechanism may be a simple way to affect this as long as there was a guarantee that all chunks in a section eventually get touched by successive churn events within a given time interval. Serendipitously, the more redundancy demanded by a section, the greater the probability that a single churn event will touch a majority of the chunks. This starts to tie in with @mav’s discussion regarding degree of redundancy. The trade-off is that passing chunks around instead of proofs is expensive, so it’s better for the network if churn is minimized.
The trade-off between redundancy and error correction is a delicate dance. The right balance of both yields a network that can survive in the real world.
Yes, and for good vault operators who want to be diligent and good maintainers of their chunks your approach is a fine recommendation to them. I suppose my thoughts beyond what is written here have drifted to a variety of other ideas/concepts that may be off topic for this thread.