diff --git a/EIPS/eip-3076.md b/EIPS/eip-3076.md
index a0a9f5d320bfc..5040150f07b45 100644
--- a/EIPS/eip-3076.md
+++ b/EIPS/eip-3076.md
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ The proof of stake (PoS) protocol penalises validators for voting in ways that c
 
 For a validator following the protocol correctly, there is, in principle, no risk of being slashed. However, changing clients (from client A to client B, say) can result in a slashing risk if client B is unaware of the blocks and attestations that were signed with client A.
 
-This can can occur if client A and client B do not agree on what the present time is. For example, say client A's time is accidentally set to a day in the future (225 epochs), and a validator switches from client A to client B without giving B a record of the blocks and attestations signed with A. The validator in question now runs the risk of attesting to two different blocks in the same epoch (a slashable offence) for the next 225 epochs (since they've already voted on these epochs with client A, and now stand to vote on them again with client B). Such time-skew bugs have been observed in the wild.
+This can occur if client A and client B do not agree on what the present time is. For example, say client A's time is accidentally set to a day in the future (225 epochs), and a validator switches from client A to client B without giving B a record of the blocks and attestations signed with A. The validator in question now runs the risk of attesting to two different blocks in the same epoch (a slashable offence) for the next 225 epochs (since they've already voted on these epochs with client A, and now stand to vote on them again with client B). Such time-skew bugs have been observed in the wild.
 
 Another situation in which slashing protection is critical is in the case of re-orgs. During a re-org it is possible for a validator to be assigned new attestation duties for an epoch in which it has already signed an attestation. In this case it is essential that the record of the previous attestation is available, even if the validator just moved from one client to another in the space of a single epoch.
 
@@ -174,6 +174,7 @@ After importing an interchange file with data field `data`, a signer must respec
 
 3. Refuse to sign any attestation that is slashable with respect to the attestations contained in `data.signed_attestations`. For details of what constitutes a slashable attestation, see `is_slashable_attestation_data`.
 4. Refuse to sign any attestation with source epoch less than the minimum source epoch present in that signer's attestations (as seen in `data.signed_attestations`). In pseudocode:
+
 ```python3
 source.epoch <
     min(att.source_epoch
@@ -181,7 +182,7 @@ source.epoch <
         if att.pubkey == attester_pubkey)
 ```
 
-5. Refuse to sign any attestation with target epoch less than or equal to the minimum target epoch present in that signer's attestations (as seen in `data.signed_attestations`). In pseudocode:
+5. Refuse to sign any attestation with target epoch less than or equal to the minimum target epoch present in that signer's attestations (as seen in `data.signed_attestations`), except if it is a repeat signing as determined by the `signing_root`. In pseudocode:
 
 ```python3
 target_epoch <=
@@ -238,20 +239,20 @@ In order to minimise risk and complexity, the format has been designed to map cl
 
 For implementers who use a complete record of signed messages to implement their slashing protection database, we make the following recommendations:
 
-* You MUST ensure that, in addition to importing all of the messages from an interchange, all the [conditions](#conditions) are enforced. In particular, conditions (2), (4) and (5) may not have been enforced by your implementation before adopting the interchange format. Our recommendation is to enforce these rules at all times, to keep the implementation clean and minimise the attack surface. For example: your slashing protection mechanism should not sign a block with a slot number less than, or equal to, the minimum slot number of a previously signed block, _irrespective_ of whether that minimum-slot block was imported from an interchange file, or inserted as part of your database's regular operation.
-* If your database records the signing roots of messages in addition to their slot/epochs, you should ensure that imported messages without signing roots are assigned a suitable dummy signing root internally. We suggest using a special "null" value which is distinct from all other signing roots, although a value like `0x0` may be used instead (as it is extremely unlikely to collide with any real signing root).
-* Care must be taken to avoid signing messages within a gap in the database (an area of unknown signing activity). This could occur if two interchanges were imported with a large gap between the last entry of the first and the first entry of the second. Signing in this gap is not safe, and would violate conditions (2), (4) and (5). It can be avoided by storing an explicit low watermark in addition to the actual messages of the slashing protection database, or by pruning on import so that the oldest messages from the interchange become the oldest messages in the database.
+- You MUST ensure that, in addition to importing all of the messages from an interchange, all the [conditions](#conditions) are enforced. In particular, conditions (2), (4) and (5) may not have been enforced by your implementation before adopting the interchange format. Our recommendation is to enforce these rules at all times, to keep the implementation clean and minimise the attack surface. For example: your slashing protection mechanism should not sign a block with a slot number less than, or equal to, the minimum slot number of a previously signed block, _irrespective_ of whether that minimum-slot block was imported from an interchange file, or inserted as part of your database's regular operation.
+- If your database records the signing roots of messages in addition to their slot/epochs, you should ensure that imported messages without signing roots are assigned a suitable dummy signing root internally. We suggest using a special "null" value which is distinct from all other signing roots, although a value like `0x0` may be used instead (as it is extremely unlikely to collide with any real signing root).
+- Care must be taken to avoid signing messages within a gap in the database (an area of unknown signing activity). This could occur if two interchanges were imported with a large gap between the last entry of the first and the first entry of the second. Signing in this gap is not safe, and would violate conditions (2), (4) and (5). It can be avoided by storing an explicit low watermark in addition to the actual messages of the slashing protection database, or by pruning on import so that the oldest messages from the interchange become the oldest messages in the database.
 
 ### Advice for Minimal Databases
 
 For implementers who wish to implement their slashing protection database by storing only the latest block and attestation for each validator, we make the following recommendations:
 
-* During import, make sure you take the _maximum_ slot block and _maximum_ source and target attestations for each validator. Although the [conditions](#conditions) require the minimums to be enforced, taking the maximums from an interchange file and merging them with any existing values in the database is the recommended approach. For example, if the interchange file includes blocks for validator `V` at slots 4, 98 and 243, then the latest signed block for validator `V` should be updated to the one from slot 243.  However, if the database has already included a block for this validator at a slot greater than 243, for example, slot 351, then the database's existing value should remain unchanged.
+- During import, make sure you take the _maximum_ slot block and _maximum_ source and target attestations for each validator. Although the [conditions](#conditions) require the minimums to be enforced, taking the maximums from an interchange file and merging them with any existing values in the database is the recommended approach. For example, if the interchange file includes blocks for validator `V` at slots 4, 98 and 243, then the latest signed block for validator `V` should be updated to the one from slot 243.  However, if the database has already included a block for this validator at a slot greater than 243, for example, slot 351, then the database's existing value should remain unchanged.
 
 ### General Recommendations
 
-* To avoid exporting an outdated interchange file -- an action which creates a slashing risk -- your implementation should only allow the slashing protection database to be exported when the validator client or signer is _stopped_ -- in other words, when the client or signer is no longer adding new messages to the database.
-* Similarly, your implementation should only allow an interchange file to be imported when the validator client is stopped.
+- To avoid exporting an outdated interchange file -- an action which creates a slashing risk -- your implementation should only allow the slashing protection database to be exported when the validator client or signer is _stopped_ -- in other words, when the client or signer is no longer adding new messages to the database.
+- Similarly, your implementation should only allow an interchange file to be imported when the validator client is stopped.
 
 ## Copyright