Not at all - in fact, the problem described in the article is a typical pitfall of the causal ordering system.

In a simplified version:

    A -1-> B
           B -2-> C
    A ---3------> C

The human expectation is that 2 happens "before" 3, because that's how it looks. The reality is that 1 happens before 3, and 1 happens before 2, but 2 and 3 have no causal relation - and the runtime is free to rearrange them in any order.

That's why the solution is essentially

    A -1-> B
           B -2-> C
           B -3-> C

Because then 2 really happens before 3.