diff --git a/lib/graph/apply-proposal.js b/lib/graph/apply-proposal.js
index 2235811..1c99be4 100644
--- a/lib/graph/apply-proposal.js
+++ b/lib/graph/apply-proposal.js
@@ -2843,6 +2843,59 @@ function deriveAnswerMeaningProfile(userSupportedMeaning) {
   };
 }
 
+function validateAnswerMeaningCompatibilityWithRawAnswer({ answer, proposal }) {
+  if (!answer || !proposal.answerMeaning) return [];
+
+  const errors = [];
+  const rawAnswerProfile = deriveAnswerMeaningProfile(answer);
+  const supportedMeaningProfile = deriveAnswerMeaningProfile(
+    proposal.answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning,
+  );
+  const supportedMeaningText = normaliseSemanticText(
+    proposal.answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning,
+  );
+
+  if (rawAnswerProfile.category === "relative_priority_only") {
+    if (supportedMeaningProfile.category !== "relative_priority_only") {
+      errors.push(
+        "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning introduces a stronger reasoning category than the raw answer establishes.",
+      );
+    }
+
+    if (containsConstraintBoundaryLanguage(supportedMeaningText)) {
+      errors.push(
+        "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning introduces an unsupported constraint or preference/trade-off distinction not present in the raw answer.",
+      );
+    }
+  }
+
+  if (rawAnswerProfile.category === "conditional_tradeoff") {
+    if (supportedMeaningProfile.category !== "conditional_tradeoff") {
+      errors.push(
+        "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning loses the raw answer's conditional trade-off structure.",
+      );
+    }
+  }
+
+  if (rawAnswerProfile.category === "uncertain") {
+    if (supportedMeaningProfile.category !== "uncertain") {
+      errors.push(
+        "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning overstates a raw answer that remains uncertain.",
+      );
+    }
+  }
+
+  if (rawAnswerProfile.category === "explicit_hard_constraint") {
+    if (supportedMeaningProfile.category !== "explicit_hard_constraint") {
+      errors.push(
+        "answerMeaning.userSupportedMeaning weakens a raw answer that explicitly states a hard constraint.",
+      );
+    }
+  }
+
+  return errors;
+}
+
 function validateAnswerMeaningAlignment(proposal) {
   if (!proposal.answerMeaning) return [];
 
@@ -3092,6 +3145,12 @@ export function applyValidatedProposal({
     validatedProposal,
   );
   proposalCompatibilityErrors.push(...selectedQuestionValidation.errors);
+  proposalCompatibilityErrors.push(
+    ...validateAnswerMeaningCompatibilityWithRawAnswer({
+      answer,
+      proposal: validatedProposal,
+    }),
+  );
   proposalCompatibilityErrors.push(
     ...validateAnswerMeaningAlignment(validatedProposal),
   );
diff --git a/tests/graph/apply-proposal.test.js b/tests/graph/apply-proposal.test.js
index 00d5981..08510ed 100644
--- a/tests/graph/apply-proposal.test.js
+++ b/tests/graph/apply-proposal.test.js
@@ -1079,6 +1079,54 @@ describe("applyValidatedProposal", () => {
     expect(result.errors.join(" ")).toContain("must remain unresolved");
   });
 
+  it("Regression A: rejects unsupported strengthening inside userSupportedMeaning itself", () => {
+    const { graph, riskUnknownId } = makeRiskClarificationFixture();
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      answer: "Risk matters more to me.",
+      previousQuestion:
+        "Is avoiding additional risk a hard constraint or a preference/trade-off?",
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: riskUnknownId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "resolved",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue:
+              "Avoiding additional risk is a preference/trade-off rather than a hard constraint.",
+            reason:
+              "The answer was interpreted as ruling out a hard constraint.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [riskUnknownId],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: null,
+        answerMeaning: {
+          userSupportedMeaning:
+            "Avoiding additional risk is a preference/trade-off rather than a hard constraint.",
+          possibleInference:
+            "The user prioritizes risk mitigation over aggressive growth strategies.",
+          supportCategory: "relative_priority_only",
+          resolutionGuidance: "must_remain_unresolved",
+        },
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
+    expect(result.stage).toBe("proposal_compatibility");
+    expect(result.errors.join(" ")).toContain(
+      "stronger reasoning category than the raw answer establishes",
+    );
+    expect(result.errors.join(" ")).toContain(
+      "unsupported constraint or preference/trade-off distinction",
+    );
+  });
+
   it("Regression B: rejects conditional trade-off proposals that flatten the qualification", () => {
     const { graph, riskUnknownId } = makeRiskClarificationFixture();
 
@@ -1306,6 +1354,127 @@ describe("applyValidatedProposal", () => {
     );
   });
 
+  it("Regression B: preserves conditional trade-off when userSupportedMeaning stays within the raw answer", () => {
+    const { graph, riskUnknownId } = makeRiskClarificationFixture();
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      answer:
+        "I'd normally avoid more risk, but for the right opportunity I might accept some.",
+      previousQuestion:
+        "Is avoiding additional risk a hard constraint or a preference/trade-off?",
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [
+          makeNode({
+            id: "n-opportunity-criteria",
+            label: "What counts as the right opportunity",
+            description:
+              "Need to know what counts as the right opportunity because that determines when some additional risk would be acceptable.",
+            kind: "unknown",
+            status: "unknown",
+            confidence: "medium",
+          }),
+        ],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: riskUnknownId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "resolved",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue:
+              "The user would normally avoid more risk, but for the right opportunity might accept some.",
+            reason:
+              "The answer establishes a conditional trade-off rather than a flat hard constraint.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [
+          makeEdge({
+            id: "e-risk-opportunity-criteria",
+            fromNodeId: riskUnknownId,
+            toNodeId: "n-opportunity-criteria",
+            relationship: "depends_on",
+            confidence: "medium",
+            description:
+              "The unresolved opportunity threshold matters because it determines when the trade-off changes.",
+          }),
+        ],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [riskUnknownId],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: {
+          nodeId: "n-opportunity-criteria",
+          question:
+            "What would count as the right opportunity for accepting some additional risk?",
+          reason:
+            "The conditional threshold remains unresolved and is the next consequential unknown.",
+        },
+        answerMeaning: {
+          userSupportedMeaning:
+            "The user would normally avoid more risk, but for the right opportunity might accept some.",
+          possibleInference:
+            "The exact threshold for the right opportunity remains undefined.",
+          supportCategory: "conditional_tradeoff",
+          resolutionGuidance: "may_resolve",
+        },
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(true);
+    expect(result.updatedSituationGraph.resolvedNodeIds).toContain(
+      riskUnknownId,
+    );
+    expect(
+      result.updatedSituationGraph.nodes.some(
+        (node) => node.id === "n-opportunity-criteria",
+      ),
+    ).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  it("Inference separation: possibleInference may remain plausible but cannot justify graph mutation when userSupportedMeaning overstates the raw answer", () => {
+    const { graph, riskUnknownId } = makeRiskClarificationFixture();
+
+    const result = applyValidatedProposal({
+      situationGraph: graph,
+      answer: "Risk matters more to me.",
+      previousQuestion:
+        "Is avoiding additional risk a hard constraint or a preference/trade-off?",
+      proposal: {
+        addedNodes: [],
+        updatedNodes: [
+          {
+            nodeId: riskUnknownId,
+            previousStatus: "unknown",
+            newStatus: "resolved",
+            previousValue: null,
+            newValue:
+              "Avoiding additional risk is a preference rather than a hard constraint.",
+            reason:
+              "The interpretation was treated as sufficient to resolve the distinction.",
+          },
+        ],
+        addedEdges: [],
+        removedEdgeIds: [],
+        resolvedUnknownNodeIds: [riskUnknownId],
+        affectedNodeIds: [],
+        selectedQuestion: null,
+        answerMeaning: {
+          userSupportedMeaning:
+            "Avoiding additional risk is a preference rather than a hard constraint.",
+          possibleInference:
+            "The user may be signaling caution and a willingness to trade off growth for lower risk.",
+          supportCategory: "other",
+          resolutionGuidance: "may_resolve",
+        },
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.success).toBe(false);
+    expect(result.stage).toBe("proposal_compatibility");
+    expect(result.errors.join(" ")).toContain(
+      "unsupported constraint or preference/trade-off distinction",
+    );
+  });
+
   it("Regression C: rejects unresolved uncertainty being treated as resolved", () => {
     const { graph, riskUnknownId } = makeRiskClarificationFixture();