Or actually radical: switch from our terrible first-past-the-post voting system to - say - ranked choice (or one of many alternatives; they're almost all better than fptp) and then primaries won't be so important and parties won't have so much power over our kinda-democratic-but-actually-oligarchic political system.
The answer depends on the specific CRDT algorithm in use. For complex data structures like the ones behind collaborative text editing your intuition that the updates end up looking hierarchical is generally correct.
A bit of a tangent, but board members (and company officers) do not in general have a specific duty to maximize shareholder profit. They have a duty of care (think carefully about decisions) and a duty of loyalty (act in the best interests of the company as a whole). Those could lead reasonably to a profit-maximizing decision but it isn't a straight line.
I don't know much about Lagrange points specifically, but it sounds like this one is an "unstable equilibrium". Even if you could park on exactly the right point, any tiny force (changing gravitational pull of other planets, dust impact, even light pressure from the sun eventually) would nudge you off of it and you would start accelerating away from it.
There is a `git mv` command that means "rename". Git could (even with its current data model) explicitly annotate commits with this intent, but doesn't. I don't know how useful that would be compared to the current heuristics, but it does mean that git commit "snapshots" are not (quite) isomorphic to a diff format (like posix diff's) that can explicitly encode renames.