@MajorP93: Thanks for expressing yourself regarding that, and I'll be transparent about the thinking behind it.

Filing those on GitHub isn't me asking anyone to stop using the forum, quite the opposite in fact.
The forum is where real conversations happen, and that's valuable in a way a GitHub issue never quite is. But forum threads scroll, get buried, and developers can't easily maintain a stable backlog out of them. GitHub gives the team a place where things don't disappear or get buried.

Think of it as belt and suspenders (which I need now that I'm getting old ). The discussion lives here, the tracking lives there. My goal as community manager is to be the relay between the two, so you don't have to worry about it.
File things here, talk about them here, and I'll make sure what matters makes it into the right repo.
Or at least, that's the plan. Mine.

From what I understand, when XCP-ng reverts to a snapshot it restores the full VM state from that point (metadata included, not just the disk contents) so the creation date field would get rolled back along with everything else; that might be why it now matches the snapshot timestamp rather than
the original. I might be wrong about the internals though.

It's a bit confusing if you were relying on that field to track VM history, and I don't think https://docs.xen-orchestra.com/xo5/manage_infrastructure#snapshot-management covers this explicitly.
Might be worth a mention to @Team-Documentation-Knowledge-Management; it's the kind of thing that catches people off guard because nothing warns you upfront that metadata rolls back too.
My $0.02.

Thanks for following up and opening the issue; that's exactly the kind of report the team needs. I've subscribed to it, so I'll see when it moves. The second-run failure pattern is a useful clue; hopefully they can reproduce it from there.

This is great to see, thank you for taking the time to rescue this; and thanks to @john.c for the recovery work and to @tjkreidl for writing it in the first place.
I went looking, and there is a small XCP-ng-specific piece on this in the official docs under NUMA affinity (https://docs.xcp-ng.org/compute#numa-affinity), but it's nothing like the depth of the Tale of Two Servers series, so having the originals archived is genuinely useful.
I won't pretend to judge how much of the 2019 BIOS and GPU-scheduler guidance still maps cleanly onto current hardware and XCP-ng versions; others here will know where it's aged and where it hasn't.
I'll make sure this is on our radar on the docs side, because it keeps coming up. Really appreciate you keeping this from disappearing.

Take it with a grain of salt, but I think bonds are usually managed as a whole rather than edited port by port in the UI. As far as I can tell, the supported route is from the network section in Xen Orchestra (the bonding part of the infrastructure docs is here: https://docs.xen-orchestra.com/xo5/manage_infrastructure#network-bonding), and on the CLI side, the bond commands are documented at https://docs.xcp-ng.org/appendix/cli_reference#bond-create (there's a matching bond-destroy command alongside it).
My honest guess is you may end up destroying and recreating the bond with the four ports you want to keep, since I'm not sure removing a single member in place is exposed anywhere, but I could easily be wrong.
If there's a cleaner way that avoids the recreate, someone will let us know.

This is a nice bit of community tooling, and thanks for keeping it updated and being upfront about the "use at your own risk" part.
On the naming point a few people raised, I think the distinction folks are drawing is fair: XOA is the Vates-built appliance, and anything you compile yourself is XO from sources.
The official docs cover that path at https://docs.xen-orchestra.com/xo5/installation#from-the-sources, including the note that there is no pro support for that method.
Hope the project keeps going well!

Thanks for the ping and for narrowing it down; that live-migration repro is a really useful signal.
I don't know enough about how the guest tools report IPs back through XAPI to say where the canonicalisation should happen, but it sounds like something @Team-Hypervisor-Kernel might want to look at since the trigger is on the agent side after migration.
If it turns out to be reproducible on another Windows guest version (2022, 2019), that might help narrow it further; no pressure though, you've already done the hard part.

Good news, or at least, that's my understanding.
This was a known bug and it's fixed in XO 6.4 (released April 29, PR #9681). Upgrading should make those alerts disappear for good. Thanks for the video, it made the report unambiguous.