In your example of play, you have a "Protect the Innocent" obstacle which has as a Strong outcome "You succeed in protecting the innocent" and as a Weak outcome "You fail completely to protect the innocent." This strikes me as, actually, being dead wrong according to the way the system is described: Shouldn't a Weak outcome mean overcoming the obstacle, but with nasty side-effects?

How is a player supposed to follow the instructions "Narrate how you overcome the obstacle. Use the following text for inspiration: 'You don't overcome the obstacle'"?

I worry about this particularly, because I think that the result of narrators looking at this example and then running games that way (which I'm seeing) is that when the balance of player cards runs more toward weakness than strength, the players will lose interest in the game ... they will, quite reasonably, conclude that it doesn't matter whether they complete the conflicts at all, since there's no difference between completing them and just leaving them unfinished.

It seems to me that a better-worded example would be a simple change, and one that could help everyone as we find our way in this new system.

Thanks,
TonyLB