however I don't think rigid qutas or or equating inequality of outcome with inequality of opportunity is helping anyone.

How do you distinguish between outcome and opportunity? Which states of a person's existence do you label "opportunities" and which states do you label "outcomes"?

Or, to offer a less abstract question, how do you prevent different outcomes from becoming different levels of opportunity?

Two people start off with 10 dollar. They then both choose to spend 10 dollars on an even and fair bet. Person A wins and now has 20 dollars, Person B loses and now has 0 dollars. So far we have equal opportunity and unequal outcome. Fine so far. But then the same bet is offered again. Now person A can choose whether to bet again, and Person B doesn't have the choice. Difference of outcome has become difference of opportunity.

Is a person's education an opportunity which ought be equal, or an outcome of their parent's finances, so it's okay if it's unequal? Is their chance at employment an opportunity which ought be equal, or an outcome of his family's social circle, so it's okay if it's unequal?

I've seen "equality of opportunity" too often used as nothing but a smokescreen.