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.
several forks where found on the network, that is why reversal was the only logical choice