Clarify wording of equivalence transitivity

Johannes Roth says:

I think for most here it's clear how key equivalence transitivity works. However, I fear it's currently described in a very misleading way. The draft states "if A is equivalent to B and B is equivalent to C, then A is equivalent to C."

What people (at least me) intuitively think is that A is replaced by B (forward) and B replaces A (inverse) and (perhaps at a later time) B is replaced by C (forward) and C replaces B (inverse). This cannot be due to the graph topology restrictions, as you already point out in your previous mail.

What the (only) correct interpretation is: A and C are both replaced by B and B has an inverse replacement for both. In that case, A equals C due to transitivity.