This may be where we differ in approach to this question. I am trying to present what I think the rules imply. And, to make a reasonable stab at fitting this back into what the text says. i.e. text as written + my reading of how it was supposed to work + my compatible solution = a viable and playable whole.
You appear to be taking a: text as written + my reading of how it was supposed to work + what works for me as a solution = a viable and playable whole.
So yours is a slightly more personally directed opinion than mine, but both are valid and both have a subjective context.
I also (as I stated way back when) have always played your way, and I only now, on rereading would be tempted to change.
However as I see it, your question boils down to "is my way better than your way", and of course the answer is no as long as they are both viable they are both fine.
So allow we to act like a British politician and answer:
"what I think you are really asking me is...
"Don't you think that it is more appropriate to stack, and thereby allow multiple effects on a contest, than to limit those effects by only allowing one negative effect?"
My answer to this (hypothetical until you verify) question, would be that I am less concerned with stacking negatives, than I am showing a shift in dramatic effect via reference to the resolution system.
I like the idea that your current negatives plug into the contest up-front, and that the contest itself, and nothing else, informs the outcome and therefore the narration. I see this as adding an encouragement to take risks for a quantifiable potential gain. This is something that I previously saw only the extended contest mechanic allowing.
Yes, it may be dramatically interesting and equally valid to demonstrate the cumulative consequences of actions, but this to me is attempting to create drama out of "bad things happening", as opposed to "risk & reward". I prefer the latter, but both do work.
Powered by hypermail