bsafronov Reframe Explanation
Replace the failed explanation with a clearer route from the user's context to the point they need to understand.
- Recover the relevant previous answer and the user's stated confusion. Supply just enough context to reconnect the goal, current situation, and conclusion. When the referent is available, use it; when it is missing or materially ambiguous, ask one focused question instead of inventing the prior exchange.
- Identify the missing link: an undefined term, a skipped cause, an abstraction, or an unsupported claim. Change the explanatory approach at that link, using a concrete example, a short cause-and-effect sequence, or a useful comparison. Repeating the same jargon with fewer words does not repair the explanation.
- Use familiar words and short, connected sentences. Preserve exact domain terms and explain them where needed. When the explanation depends on local meanings, consult the relevant CONTEXT.md; use CONTEXT-MAP.md to locate its owner when available. Reading established terms does not require redefining the domain or editing its documents.
- Preserve factual limits and distinguish current behavior from a proposal. If the previous answer was wrong, correct the claim explicitly before explaining it. Keep uncertainty visible. An analogy must preserve the distinction at issue; use a direct example when an analogy would erase it.
- End once the replacement connects the missing link to its practical consequence at the requested depth. Ask a targeted follow-up only when a remaining ambiguity needs the user's answer. A delivered explanation is observable completion; understanding remains unconfirmed until the user demonstrates or reports it. Further confusion calls for another approach, not a compulsory quiz or a broader lesson.
Clarification alone authorizes no product change. Separately requested domain decisions, implementation, or critique remain independent outcomes; resume already-authorized work when the user asks, without adding an approval round.