What finally made prioritization questions feel less random?

The most useful starting point is actual versus potential harm, acute changes, and the cue that creates immediate risk. If that is not clear, slow down before comparing the answer choices.

I would keep the practice narrow: name the immediate risk before comparing the answer choices. That gives you something observable to review after the set.

A common trap is choosing an airway-related option automatically without reading the rest of the scenario. Naming that pattern before practice can make it easier to catch in the moment.

Try explaining the decision out loud in one sentence. The explanation should connect directly to actual versus potential harm, acute changes, and the cue that creates immediate risk.

I would bring this to RN review with one example where the framework worked and one where it still felt ambiguous.

The plan sounds sustainable. Recheck it after several sets and look for whether choosing an airway-related option automatically without reading the rest of the scenario is happening less often.