The sequence in the rules is (a) last person in conflict resolves stakes; (b) everyone rolls fallout.

It seems to me that the "fiction being created" would flow more smoothly if this was inverted.  First you roll fallout, so you know if someone is dying etc., then you state how the stakes resolve taking that into account.  Or if you know that PC's taking some fallout the resolution can script the set up for it.

If the stakes were "his attitude" (PC's hoping to get trust so NPC reveals what he knows) and talking went south and ended up with nasty words that saw guns drawn and a lethal fallout suffered, eventually NPC loses, if you know he rolled 20 fallout damage before scripting how stake turns out, you can script that "with his dying breath his spits out the truth and curses you" etc..  You can combine "PC's won stakes" with "the other events that will follow".

BTW, I think "NPC attitude" is a better stake than "trust" etc since "trust is a particular outcome".  If you win stakes on attitude then if "trust" is consisent with your Raises/Challenges etc then you get a revelation from trust, if you had to escalate to threats, abuse etc. and then won then you get it from fear.  That is a stake that if the NPC wins more easily is resolved contrarily by the GM.  Rather than "doesn't trust", it's more clearly "sees you as opportunists" or somesuch.

The sequence is (a) last person in conflict (the winner) resolves stakes, (b) everybody rolls fallout, and (c) everybody chooses what his fallout MEAN.

So, if you invert (a) with (b+c), you get everybody deciding what happen BEFORE the winner can talk and say what happen. This make his job really difficult and full of limitations.

In the rules-as-written, instead, FIRST the winner tell what happen to the stakes, THEN everybody describe his fallout around this (even using flashbacks to make it happen before the end of the cnflict)

Thanks, I see now how it would compromise winner's authority over stakes etc.