Pedantic
Legend
I view the "establishment of situations" as an incorrect reading of the GM's role. They establish and populate a setting as a worldbuilder and separately animate the forces/people/things inside that setting. Situation is an emergent property of the interactions between those roles, the actions of the PCs and the results output by the system (which should encode the impact of actions separately from setting and actors; the GM role that should be most deprecated is GM-as-adjudicator).I’m not sure whether or not you’re saying my system wouldn’t be to your taste, which is fine if not, but one thing I do want to clarify is that I am trying to systematize as much of the resolution process as possible. I say as much as possible and not fully because the GM does need the ability to establish situations and say what happens (since players lack the systemic authority to do that), but the GM is constrained in how they do that. It would be a misplay to pull things out of nowhere, and consequence-foregrounding is an important technique for avoiding that.
(As an aside, the idea to explicitly foreground consequences comes from my experience playing in @Manbearcat’s Torchbearer 2e and Blades in the Dark campaigns. He was really good at making sure we knew the stakes, though he wasn’t systematizing it like I am.)
Once you move directly to situations, you necessarily conflate the GM's roles, and run into questions about agency, though you're clearly working on another angle to resolve that. I think you run into a trade-off of immersion, in exchange for hopefully getting something stronger than a GM's professional responsibility to separate actions taken while embodying different roles.