You reached for outcomes more often than for duty or for character. Not what the rule says and not what the decision makes of you, but what it actually does to people once everything has landed.
An argument about consequences is an argument that new consequences are allowed to settle, and that is the honest thing about reasoning this way as well as the exposed thing. Whoever describes the costs last has an advantage over you, and not everybody who does that is being straight with you. Which of your cases the twist moved and which it did not is set out further down, and that is the half worth reading twice.
The Strategist
Outcome & Impact
Most of your cubes came up green. The fox is the animal on that band of the printed Moral Compass.
Counted, not named
Whether the twist moved you is no part of this name. A run reports it on its own, as a count of the cases where your side or your reasoning changed, and holding is not better than moving in either direction.
No lens is better than another and neither answer to pressure is better than the other. There is no score here and nothing to be ranked against. A run will tell you how the three profiles fall across everybody who has agreed to leave theirs behind, and where you sit in that, and it stops there: the big share is not the right answer and the small one is not the interesting answer. Every claim it makes about you is printed over the answer that produced it.
Find out how you actually reason.
One case or four, about five minutes each, and a name at the end. No account needed.