PBL;
Perhaps this will be judged thread-drift but the intention is a side-bar that may help understanding, including my own regarding this important and practical understanding.
The notion is necessary of course, because, unlike our anthropomorphizing of technical devices, they really do not have a mind and cannot "discern", anticipate or "remember", (I know there are exceptions) and so designs which can resolve such issues as are under discusssion, (and one's like the Turkish B737 Radio Altimeter failure at Amsterdam) are important to comprehend at least in part.
In the Driscoll paper, p.4, it is stated,
"The implications of the Byzantine Generals' Problem and the associated proofs to modern systems are significant. Consder a system-level requirement to tolerate ny two faults(which includes Byzantine faults). Such a system requires seven-fold (3m + 1 = 3(2) + 1 = 7) redundancy. This redundancy must include all elements used in data processing and tranfser, not just processors. The system also must use three rounds (m + 1 = 2 +1 = 3) of information exchange. This correspond to a twenty-one times increase in the required data bandwidth over a simplex system, (seven-fold redundancy times three rounds of information exchange each).
"To more easily identify the problem, concise definitions of Byzantine fault and Byzantine failure are presented here:
Byzantine fault: a fault presenting different symptioms to different observers.
Byzantine failure: the loss of a system service due to a Byzantine fault."
You reference "5" sensors. In my non-trained view I am slugging through the paper with much more to read/absorb, (and the Lamport paper) so I am needing to understand how the above comments relate, if at all.
If this belongs off-line I am happy to do so but thought the question and momentary diversion might be helpful to the main topic of resolving the question and helping understanding. That it has been around for thirty years means something and opens a number of questions as well.
PJ2