Winning that effects topicality is illegitimate isn't the toughest challenge in the landscape of theory debates. It's pretty open-and-shut. Doubly so when the argument is "significantly," and the defense is that you meet the word in the topic because you satisfy the other stock issue with the same name.
well... that's not exactly my defense. my defense would be something like
defn: "Significantly (adv.): To a significant degree or extent; so as to make a noticeable difference; substantially, considerably." (oxford english dictionary online)
1. common man
2. real world
interp: the word significantly refers to the results of the reform, i.e. the difference it makes.
1. a common man would gauge the significance of a reform by the significance of it's results. if i told my friend that i would significantly reform his car (which happened to be broken), then replaced a spark plug (thus fixing the car), he wouldn't say "well, my car is now working, but that wasn't a significant change at all! just a little spark plug!", he'd say "gee, thanks will, you're the man!"
2. in the real world, experts discussing potential reforms to the UN don't limit themselves to reforms that would directly change most of the UN. they focus on reforms that would provide a significant benefit, because those are the good reforms. we shouldn't limit ourselves in that way either.
3. this interp actually provides more reasonable limits on affirmatives. if the word significant applies to the actual change, then changing a significant portion of the UN would be topical, even if it had virtually no result. consider a plan to have all UN officials use #4 lead in their pencils instead of #2 because it's harder and lasts longer (example stolen from Daniel Thonmas (Amodeum)). such a plan would not be topical under this interp (and it shouldn't), but under negs interp, we could run that plan and completely fulfill the resolution.