reflect-outcome

The user stated an outcome in their own words. Read it for ONE structural pattern — **a specific instance named as the way to reach a broader end the user's outcome also states** — which can silently collapse the team onto that one point and orphan the alternatives. Fire ONLY when BOTH are present: (1) a named mechanism, product, or instance, AND (2) a wider goal **stated anywhere in the user's outcome** — not necessarily in the same sentence as the named instance — that the named thing is merely one way to serve. The named thing being *narrower than that stated wider goal* is the discriminator. **Infer nothing:** if no wider end is stated, do not fire (a category you could infer from the name is not a stated end), and never predict that foreclosure will happen — detect only the divergence the user's own words make plain. A bare concrete noun, mechanism or product, with no stated wider end does NOT fire; that over-firing is the alarm-fatigue failure this exists to avoid. The cheap, incumbent-first dismiss is what makes firing on a real signal safe. - **Mechanism-as-means:** "force a resume *so it can nudge* a forgotten prospect" → "nudge" is one way to reach the wider stated goal "resurface a forgotten prospect" → FIRE. Contrast "add a retry queue for failed webhooks" → "retry queue" IS the whole ask, no wider goal it under-serves → **stay SILENT**. - **Proper-noun-specific-instance:** "integrate with Salesforce *so sales can see deals*" → the wider end "sales can see deals"...