A repeated outcome deserves a deeper question than “Why again?”

Asking why something happened again invites a story, and stories are easy to produce. A better question goes at the structure: what conditions make this outcome the natural result, and who or what is keeping those conditions in place. That question is harder and less satisfying, which is exactly why it gets skipped.

Take something that has now gone wrong three times. Instead of explaining it, describe the setup that guarantees it. If you can describe the setup clearly, the change usually becomes obvious.