[saltcured]

And isn't this problem then the opposite of what is described in the prior post?

A timestamp "repeats" to add a second (positive leap second). The subsequent timestamp sequence is delayed relative to its prior offset to TIA. The Google "smear" method works here to slow down the clock rather than repeat values.

To drop a second (negative leap second) we have a one second gap in the timestamp sequence. The subsequent timestamp sequence is advanced relative to its prior offset to TIA. This just requires a monotonic jump, as if the computer froze and did not perform any work for one second before resuming with the right clock values.

[binarycoffee]

Oh yes, absolutely, GP got it backward and I went along with it...