I’ll just offer some observations from the sidelines:
Violation/ no violation is binary. The real world of decompression is analog.
When a deco violation occurs, all that means is that for the particular settings and the particular algorithm, at that point the computer determines the risk level has passed over some threshold, set by the manufacturer and/ or the algorithm as acceptable for their market.
This doesn’t mean that the computer has gone “tilt”, overrun anything, or lost its ability to calculate a revised schedule. If any of the available conservatism settings (in our case these include age, workload, risk level) were set differently, or if the spacing between stops were set to a different value, or if the computer included additional risk level options (as, effectively, Buhlmann with GF does) the computer might deliver a result that is below the risk level selected and not show a violation.
A revised schedule might include additional time at shallower stops. Obviously, in the case of an extreme violation, the shallowest possible stop might end up being below the diver’s current depth. We can calculate these schedules consistent with the algorithm to a point, but the risk level increases with with the scale of the violations. We do warn, post dive for 24 hours, with a prominent and unavoidable page that must be acknowledged to reach the dive screen, but leave it up to the diver to determine how they handle any violation- re-descent, continuing diving, or seeking aid.
That's just our approach for our intended customers. Locking out post dive after a violation is not an unreasonable approach, but it's not our choice. I find it hard to understand how locking up during a dive improves diver safety under any circumstances.
-Ron