monsterer continues making the nonsense the that following transactions are not invalidated by the double-spend (DSPEND -> GOODA -> GOODB), but that is not the point. They become orphaned.
Why do you think that? GOODA and GOODB have no reason to be orphaned, they are valid and do not depend on DSPEND, except for sequencing.
Come on man. This is noise. At least understand first the white paper. You are completely lacking an understanding of how Iota works. The payers have to decide which chains not to reference when there are conflicting double-spends. If they stop referencing a chain, those transactions already on that chain get orphaned. I shouldn't have to explain the basic concepts of Iota to you. That is what the white paper is for.
If they are orphaned they don't continue to build more cumulative PoW, thus they are probabilistically unconfirmed. Please do not forget one of the most basic facts of a DAG (or even a block chain!) which is that it is the SUCCEEDING PoW that adds to the weight, not the preceding.
Remember confirmation in a DAG is never absolute. It is always a relative probability. The payee has to access the risk. When the main chain(s) are moving forward and the others are not, we say they are orphaned.