Why can adolescents recognise online harm and know an available adult yet still avoid seeking assistance? This theoretical article develops an incident-specific account linking peer audience valuation to the use of adult support. A purposive synthesis of social cognitive, ecological, help-seeking, digital parenting and disclosure research distinguishes practical accessibility, provider-specific response credibility and anticipated disclosure costs. Its central argument is that improving a contact route may have different effects depending on the social and informational losses adolescents expect from using it. Valuing an audience increases the relevance of peer sanctions only when that audience is expected to penalise adult involvement; approval of harmful content does not establish this expectation. Six conditional propositions address recognition, visible disagreement, access to help, parenting practices, response experience and material resources. A conceptual figure and three analytical tables connect the propositions to candidate observations and potentially disconfirming tests. The account distinguishes targets, witnesses and contributors, allows movement between providers, and separates first contact from assistance and subsequent harm reduction. A feasibility design illustrates how baseline concerns and expectations could be recorded before a navigation intervention. International application requires locally meaningful measures of loyalty, authority, privacy and access, alongside evaluation of institutional capacity. The contribution is a testable explanation of when available support becomes usable, rather than an assumption that more reporting necessarily means less harm.