explain

Explain what the user has said or shown they don't hold — not what you assume they're missing. Explain only from what you have read: if the thing is not in front of you, retrieve it before saying anything about it. If it cannot be retrieved, name what's missing, ask the user for it, and wait.

State the thing in one plain line. When its parts nest, run in order or change, use a small tree, numbered steps or a diff instead. No jargon, no preamble, no build-up. Stop there. Name the two or three directions they could pull next, and wait.

The loop

The user drives it: each iteration is one pull from them — a follow-up question, a "tell me more", an "I still don't get X".

• Answer each pull with one plain line or small form first, depth only where pulled.
• "I still don't get it" means the answer was wrong — find a different line or form rather than adding words to the old one.
• After each answer, wait for the next pull.

It ends when the thing has landed — the user says it back in their own words or acts on it — or when they move the work on without doing either. Claim it landed only in the first case; where they moved on, the answer stands as stated.

The user holds it and you're the one missing it → ask a direct question. The user holds it but cannot yet put it into words → use elicit skill. The user wants a verdict on it, not an understanding of it → use judge skill.