If anyone has any evidence to suggest that the network was "forked" at any point, please share - I have reviewed IRC transcripts and have read every post, and was monitoring the pools throughout the hardfork implementation and there was never any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the network had actually forked. Hopefully Evan will re-release the same code and we can try to fork RC3 in a couple days.
I was going through the two block explorers and I think it was a ...97 block which I saw on chainz and the official block explorer. They had different values for the same block.
I was refreshing the block explorers periodically, I did notice chainz was behind at one point (chainz often lags for no apparent reason so I wouldn't read much into that), but I didn't see any evidence of a fork, just some lagging. When the revert went up both explorers (and all pools) were on the correct chain.