your trying to set a narrative that channel partners update a commitment and then send a "onion_routing_packet"
No, one side sends "onion_routing_packet" in a "update_add_htlc" message and then commitment update is expected as per specifications (see last quote in this reply for explanation).
you do know that users along a route cant create a commitment until they have first received a LN payment. else how will they even know what they have to update the commitment by. (oh wait is LN now featuring psychic powers?)
I do know that and that's what "update_add_htlc" does.
this channel update is a private message between channel partners that update their own micropayment promise.
What exactly is that private message in your opinion? That's what I have been asking you the whole time.
please take some time to read ALL the bolts. and try not to fear moving away from your adamant desire to only read bolt 2
Please, take some time before replying to my posts and show me the actual pieces of code from the official specification which back up your statements.
as you can see "update_add_htlc" is the msat message including the "onion_routing_packet"
update_add_htlc is not a trigger for create new commitment
You make me repeat the same things over and over again.
Forwarding HTLCs
Requirements
A node:
until an incoming HTLC has been irrevocably committed:
MUST NOT offer the corresponding outgoing HTLC (update_add_htlc) in response to that incoming HTLC.
As per specifications, the node which receives "update_add_htlc" MUST commit the HTLC by signing a new commitment transaction (a series of "commitment_signed" and "revoke_and_ack" messages") before forwarding the payment further (sending "update_add_htlc" to the next hop).