Should flag "was/were (a/an/the) fomer ..." as redundant and/or ambiguous

If something "was the former X" in the past, does that mean it's no longer the "former X"? And does that mean that it's once again "the X"?

Or are "was/were" and "former" simply redundant?

Examples:
- This **was the former** default web application built on top of the Apache Fineract platform. It's now - It was right when you fired a console error log to inform the developer, that **was the former** behaviour
- Website for l33t.studio which **was a former** eSports studio and virtual event venue.
- ... and what **were former** names of these same secrets historically
- there **was an former** issue with former single valued author field
- ... and I believe there **were former** issues around this as well.

Suggestions should be:
- ... is/are the former ...
- ... was/were formerly ...

Potential false positives:
- Are characters excluded which were former included? → were formerly included (a different grammar error)

No repository file or test is named in the issue, so start by locating Harper's existing grammar rules for “former” and the handling of “was/were” constructions. Use the listed examples and suggested “formerly” or “is/are the former” wording to define the rule, including the noted false-positive case, then add coverage for accepted and rejected sentences.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.