There are no blocks as Fuserleer said, so I assumed there was no blockchain reorgs. A ledger can't accept a double-spending transaction without doing a reorg.
This is true. However, the only way to have no forks is to know in advance (and forever) who the nodes building the ledger are - in that case, if, say a network split occurs, the nodes who split off will lose connection to the ledger production nodes and simply stop with a 'no consensus' result.
But if your list is arbitrary and constantly changing, then forks are inevitable.
Maybe we should all just wait for the ledger discription.
There are no blocks but there has to be someway for reorgnaizations right? The primer itself says that all nodes are not always in the exact same state (for legitimate reasons). So there has to be a way for them to agree on states (which afaik is the transaction consensus value) and to change their own state in case it turns out someone else has a "better" state.