  This paper introduces a unified model of consistency and isolation that
minimizes the gap between how these guarantees are defined and how they are
perceived. Our approach is premised on a simple observation: applications view
storage systems as black-boxes that transition through a series of states, a
subset of which are observed by applications. For maximum clarity, isolation
and consistency guarantees should be expressed as constraints on those states.
Instead, these properties are currently expressed as constraints on operation
histories that are not visible to the application. We show that adopting a
state-based approach to expressing these guarantees brings forth several
benefits. First, it makes it easier to focus on the anomalies that a given
isolation or consistency level allows (and that applications must deal with),
rather than those that it proscribes. Second, it unifies the often disparate
theories of isolation and consistency and provides a structure for composing
these guarantees. We leverage this modularity to apply to transactions
(independently of the isolation level under which they execute) the equivalence
between causal consistency and session guarantees that Chockler et al. had
proved for single operations. Third, it brings clarity to the increasingly
crowded field of proposed consistency and isolation properties by winnowing
spurious distinctions: we find that the recently proposed parallel snapshot
isolation introduced by Sovran et al. is in fact a specific implementation of
an older guarantee, lazy consistency (or PL-2+), introduced by Adya et al.
