In multi-user projects where both hard rules and local exceptions exist, does a per-decision “conflict diagram” that explicitly decomposes a refusal into contributing layers (e.g., 40% due to an org hard rule, 40% due to a project default, 20% due to your own side-effect cap) lead to better user mental models and fewer misdirected override attempts than simpler, single-cause explanations that name only the highest-priority blocking rule?

Answer

Probably yes in constrained forms, but only if the conflict diagram is coarse, stable, and clearly tied to the existing chain-of-command vocabulary. A well-designed, small-number layer breakdown seems likely to improve user mental models and reduce misdirected override attempts compared with single-cause explanations, but overly granular or pseudo-quantitative attributions (like misleading percentages) risk confusion, skepticism, and extra cognitive load.

In practice, a qualitative multi-layer explanation ("blocked by: org hard rule + project default; your side-effect cap is not the main constraint") is more promising than a numeric decomposition and should be limited to a few, clearly named layers.