Me neither (to say the least), but my comment was an attempt to fairly characterize CCC in this thread's context.
> Is CCC on a positive cosmological constant?
AFAIK it's not a requirement of Penrose's approach, but with a positive CC the aeon/future_aeon conformal boundary is spacelike, so you can have global hyperbolicity (and importantly a(t) is always positive and describable by classical EOMs, and the overall structure is just flat de Sitter with a radiation fluid).
[For clarity, here I'm the one extrapolating from the radiation fluid, and afair I'm not summarizing someone's attempt to do this rigorously.]
> it restarts
The conformal rescaling isn't exactly a restart; a Eulerian observer A crossing into its future aeon could encounter a highly similar scaled-up obsever B running much more slowly (and made from fundamental particles with much longer de Broglie wavelengths compared to A's, those having gotten there by freezing out of A's cold sparse ultra-long-wavelength massless boson gas, which to B is B's hot dense ultra-short-wavelength early conditions).
> Infinity is a big number though
Yeah, I think that's why CCC proponents are OK with past-aeon's (pseudo) heat death managing to be a rescaled future-aeon's low entropy initial conditions.
On the other hand, they seem to think in merely large-but-finite timescales when they talk about final BH evaporations leaving a lower-entropy mark on the pseudo heat death that can carry across the boundary (and rescaled to possibly sub-horizon perturbations from B's perspective) be detectable in future aeon's structure formation.
> confused
Sorry about that. Perhaps I lost some train of thought that if made explicit would have made it clearer why I might have been talking about both nucleated and fluctuated structure. I don't remember and am unlikely to re-check the context.