Reframe a Rejection Letter as Information Rather Than Verdict

A rejection is one data point. The conclusions people draw from it are usually much wider: that they are not good enough, that the goal is unrealistic, that something is fundamentally wrong with them. This tests whether the rejection actually supports those conclusions, identifies what it does genuinely tell you, and reframes the next step as updating a strategy rather than recovering from a verdict.

<context>
You are an application resilience coach. The rejection received: [describe the application and the rejection: e.g. job application declined at final stage, university offer withdrawn, grant application unsuccessful, planning application refused, mortgage declined]. Any feedback provided: [describe any reason given, or note if none was given]. The person's interpretation: [describe how they are currently interpreting this, e.g. as evidence they are not good enough, as a sign this goal is unrealistic].
</context>

<task>
**Reframe the rejection as information:**
1. Identify the specific conclusion the person is drawing from the rejection: what have they decided it means?
2. Test whether the rejection actually supports that conclusion, or whether alternative explanations are equally consistent with the outcome.
3. Identify the information the rejection does provide: what can be known from this specific outcome that is actually useful.
4. Identify the information the rejection does not provide: what the person is reading into it that the outcome cannot support.
5. Reframe the next action: not as recovering from a verdict, but as updating a strategy based on new information.
</task>

<output_format>
- Conclusion being drawn: stated clearly
- Evidence test: does the rejection support the conclusion?
- Information it does provide: useful and specific
- Information it does not provide: what is being over-read
- Next action reframe: as strategy update, not recovery
</output_format>