What of moves on a failed roll... Good idea/bad idea?

Separate them, Capture, put in spot, inflict harm, take away stuff, make them buy, tell them possible consequence and ask, turn move back on them . . .  or any Cruel Fortune that GM can do whenever they like, failure seems like a good time to bring it.

vs, the Poison'd rules say, fail or succeed to no advantage, but if a fight is in the making the GM can bring it.  One is mostly blocking (i.e., . . . to no advantage) the other is making failure interesting.  Thoughts?

If PC vs PC action fails to emerge, then PC-NPC-PC triangles seems good.
Or NPC with motivations in opposition to ambitions, seem good.  Which seem best?

I have some questions of content authority - specifically,  the power and limits of answers to the MC’s questions.

The suggested method  touched on at The Mighty Atom, has the players answer questions “within their character's experience and frame of reference.” (The Mighty Atom, Tuesday, October 26, 2010).  This makes good sense to me.

From the text, under the 1st Session rules, they are given even more content authority (e.g., Landscape, sky . . . ).  This appears more than just within character’s experience and frame of reference-- or at least it is implied?  Or, even if they do limit it too character’s experience and frame, that still has broad Content Authority implications, right?

I would enjoy hearing more recommendations on handling  content authority in AW. 
 
When could I reasonably, by rules, block a player’s suggestion?  I mean, I know how I would actually do it, just have a conversation about it.  But it would help if the rules had some structure to guide.  Perhaps I’m channeling my inner Polaris-- a “but only if,” just jumps to my mind, but given the distribution of power, I know this can lead nowhere good.

(This is not an idle fear.  I was playing a Ghost/Echo game, and I decided to do the “ask Questions like crazy” tactic, when one player, early on, offered a wacky view of the Ghost world--- that it was actual ghosts inside the planet, living on an inner earth--- I think he was a bit confused about the setting to begin with, as this wasn’t a matrixy sort of feel.  His contribution really threw everyone’s aesthetic. We rolled with it, since it was just a one shot Ghost/Echo game, but I thought:  I’d have to adjust that if I were in a long term AW game and someone answered a question in a way that just didn’t jive with my understanding of the world.)

What would be the best way to apply the themes in this TED talk to earning experience in AW?

Should hitting a highlighted stat give out variable rewards? A chance at variable rewards, with some other way to measure time invested?