git:20260809.21f29b0 to git:20260809.5c2aad2

- description: Recognize when the last explanation didn't land, and re-pitch it rather than repeating it. Use when the user's response signals confusion — a follow-up that shows they missed the point, silence, or a direct "wait, what?" — right after an explanation was given.

- Confusion after an explanation is a signal about the explanation, not the reader — repeating the same words louder fixes nothing. This skill's defining constraint, from ISO 24495-1 (the international plain-language standard)'s four governing principles: a re-pitch must be **relevant** (only what this reader needs right now, not everything that's true), **findable** (the point stated up front, not buried under setup), **understandable** (plain words, one idea per sentence), and **actionable** (the reader knows what to do or believe next) — all four, not just "simpler words."

- ## Phase 1 — Recognize the signal

- The trigger is a response that shows the prior explanation didn't transfer: a follow-up question that reveals a different (wrong) mental model, silence where engagement was expected, or a direct signal like "wait, what?" Don't wait for an explicit "I don't understand" — a follow-up question aimed at the wrong layer of the problem is the same signal, just quieter.

- ## Phase 2 — Re-pitch, don't repeat

- The failed explanation's words, structure, and level of detail didn't work — reusing them with more emphasis repeats the failure. Reframe from a different angle: a different analogy, a different starting point, or a different granularity (too abstract → concrete example; too detailed → the one-sentence version first).

- ## Phase 3 — Apply all four ISO 24495-1 principles

- - **Relevant** — cut everything the reader doesn't need to resolve their actual confusion right now. A re-pitch that repeats context they already have is why the first attempt was missed.

- - **Findable** — lead with the point itself, not the reasoning that arrives at it. A reader who's already confused won't survive a long windup before the answer appears.

- - **Understandable** — plain words over jargon, short sentences, one idea per sentence. If a technical term is unavoidable, define it inline rather than assuming it survived from the first attempt.

- - **Actionable** — end with what the reader should now do, believe, or decide. An explanation that's merely accurate but doesn't resolve into a next step leaves the reader exactly as stuck as before.

- ## Phase 4 — Keep vocabulary consistent

- Use the same terms the project's domain glossary already establishes (see `domain-modeling`'s ubiquitous language) rather than introducing a fresh synonym mid-re-pitch — swapping vocabulary between the first attempt and the re-pitch adds a second thing to reconcile on top of the concept itself.

- ## Phase 5 — Confirm it landed

- Don't move on until there's a real signal the re-pitch worked — a reader restating it in their own words, or acting on it correctly — rather than a token acknowledgment. A second miss calls for a third angle, not a third repeat of the second attempt.