The scenario considers varying amounts owned by an entity named Bob within a channel that has a total capacity of 12 units. When Bob owns amounts up to 2 units, which is the purchased amount, these are suggested to be locked with CLTV. This ensures that only the agreed-upon amount is locked, while any excess remains freely available to Bob. The structure of the outputs changes as the owned amount increases: owning 1 unit results in a single CLTV-encumbered output of 1 unit; for 2 units, there's a CLTV-encumbered output equal to the owned amount. Once ownership exceeds the purchased amount, and assuming it's above the dust limit, the proposition includes both a CLTV-encumbered output and an ordinary output. For example, if Bob owns 3 units, he would have a CLTV-encumbered output of 2 units and an ordinary output of 1 unit.

Additionally, the idea extends to cover situations where the buyer, such as Alice, does not use their funds for the purchase, suggesting that CLTV locking should only be applied to pure inbound purchases. In this case, any additional funds from Alice would be placed in a separate channel without CLTV encumbrance, adhering to the original idea presented. This approach aims to provide flexibility and security in transaction outputs within a channel, balancing the use of CLTV encumbrance to protect certain funds while leaving others more accessible.

This summary omits the closing pleasantries typically found in an email, focusing solely on the technical aspects discussed. The outlined concepts present a nuanced approach to managing channel capacities and the distribution of funds within them, offering a method of utilizing CLTV encumbrance to safeguard specific transactions effectively while maintaining liquidity for others.