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. 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.
I'm not talking about Iota specifically here, I'm talking about any DAG or tree of chained transactions with POW.
If Iota is orphaning chains by discarding double spends, then this is a big design flaw. I maintain that you don't need to orphan minority chains containing double spends at all in a DAG, or tree of work - by doing so you throw away work, which is against a fundamental tenant of efficient consensus design.
Please go study. Please don't make me put you on ignore. I am really get annoyed that you are writing noise and haven't even digested the basic concepts of a DAG.
How do you know they won't be double-spent later. Duh. That is the entire point of building a long chain of cumulative PoW so the confirmation is probabilistically more assured. I already wrote this in the prior post.