User blog comment:The Milkman/No Love For Leviathan?/@comment-24174486-20120915231103/@comment-2228120-20120916184054

/sigh/. Excerpting again: "I have to disagree that the three solutions are an answer to Shepard’s problems and not the Catalyst’s. “It changed me, it opened new possibilities” – these new possibilities for the Catalyst, not Shepard. The Reapers were its previous solution which doesn’t work anymore, therefore the Reapers are no longer needed for these new possibilities, and in this respect, the Catalyst’s interests sort of overlap with Shepard’s: one doesn’t need the Reapers, the other wants to get rid of them. Win-win, in a way, but this doesn’t mean that Shepard is the one dictating the conditions; very much the contrary. The energy of the Crucible now allows these options: Destroy – sacrifice the unsuccessful solution and remove the current roots of the organics x synthetics conflict; Control – use the previous unsuccessful solution to patrol the galaxy and prevent the o. x s. conflict by force; Synthesis – prevent the conflict forever and preserve the unsuccessful solution. Thus, even the Destroy as the option which is the worst for the Catalyst, is still designed as at least partially solving its problem. And finally, what happens in Reject? The Catalyst sticks to the previous, non-functional solution. In none of the options, the Catalyst merely stops the harvest; it always strives to follow the original plan and somehow deal with the o. x s."

So, it is not true that only one ending solves the Catalyst's problem - only one solves it permanently. One solves it temporarily and another unreliablybut each of them addresses the Catalyst's problem.