Pointing at the Haruspex makes it clear that you're aware of your trigger, and which trigger; in the original scenario, Aaron just says “trigger”, which is entirely too ambiguous.

To be fair, I can imagine most investigations going something like this (with everyone being honest):
A: I pointed at my Haruspex when it triggered, but she responded with CoCo and I got distracted…
N: I never saw him point at anything, he never said he'd draw…
A: you were so quick with CoCo I didn't say anything, but I was pointing out the trigger!
N: well, I didn't see that.
Judge: asdflkj sdafl;jksdfsy asdfh;a sdafh;asfd …

d:^D

Just to be sure, it's too ambiguous when there aren't another abilities that can trigger?

For instance, if I point at Monastery Mentor and say “triggers,” have I made it clear that I'm getting a token? Or is it ambiguous in this case, because I could be referring to prowess?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

For instance, if I point at Monastery Mentor and say “triggers,” have I made it clear that I'm getting a token? Or is it ambiguous in this case, because I could be referring to prowess?

I would argue that the scenario you present is exactly why the “you have to take the required physical action” clause is in the missed trigger policy.

If you point at the Mentor and say “triggers,” don't put a token on the battlefield and then move on with your turn, I would definitely say that you have missed your trigger for the token. There should have been a physical action taken, there wasn't one, you don't get a token.

Otherwise, what's to keep me from just saying, “Triggers” all the time and claiming I didn't miss any triggers?

Folks, we've strayed pretty far from the original scenario at this point. The solution to the KP scenario is posted, if you wish to have continuing conversation on this part of policy there are a number of good places to do it, such as the Competitive forum. Please remember that these Knowledge Pool threads are intended for discussion only on the scenario presented.