i could maybe believe that, as my (different) opinion is generally predicated on promises not being affected by your actions, that the starting situation reigns as the factor in determining if promises are accepted, or not. could smaller efforts possibly be considered, especially if "smaller efforts" does not include scouting visits? very possible, as there are caps on those efforts and they can only have so much effect.
however, i do rebel at several consequences that would (seemingly) be inferred from that statement. the first is allowing SVs to impact home and campus visits. minimally, we can be almost absolutely sure that this is not the case in pulldown situations - which is precisely when it really matters. we have all tried this too many times and know your actions are rejected even after you are considered. i suppose if scholarships are considered last (which seems like it may be the case), they could be what pushes people to being considered... but after so many samples, i struggle to believe that, seems like fifty times ive sent a hv or cv just for the heck of it, yet to succeed. but maybe others have had this work for them?
there is also the question of, is it more complicated than CS leads on? i would guess people would guess no, but i struggle to see how it works that way. if scholarship responses are supposed to be considered, are they processed last for each party, after all other effort is processed? it sure seems like that must be the case, or they would be inaccurate. also, who is processed first? do the processing actions of one party affect the other party, even with the possible exceptions of the respective scholarship offers? if so, does this mean your opponent's actions can change your promise outcome? i strongly believe this answer is NO, it seems to me promises are accepted even when an opponent knocks you off. so what then, certain actions base their outcome on the starting position, and certain actions do not? if so, why is it some actions, not all? or is it all actions? merely processing actions in some order does not necessarily mean the state is updating after ever processing action, that the effects of one action can impact the outcome of another.
i suppose, after reading what i initially considered a very different response than expected, i see little in terms of actual meaningful difference - even if actions can theoretically impact the success of subsequent actions. one more thought that comes to mind is, when far behind in a d1 battle at the point of initiation (for example, a late start in a situation where you are not considered at all, don't you get roughly the same failure rate on visits for the first ones you send, and the later ones? if actions took effect before the subsequent action (in the ordering CS described) actually took effect - which is all that matters to us (it is 100% irrelevant, it seems to me, what the order of processing is, if there is no impact on the state subsequent actions are evaluated with) - if those actions took effect, in a string of 50 HVs 5 at a time, why do the final few sets of 5 seem to be rejected as often as the first?
it seems to me the seminal question here is, does the processing action update the state used to evaluate subsequent actions, within the same cycle? and if so, how do actions of one party in a battle affect the evaluation of the actions of the other, within the same cycle?