Efter mötet var allt så rörigt att hon bad sin kollega att förklara planen igen.

Yes. Efter mötet means after the meeting, and it is a time expression placed first in the sentence.

In Swedish main clauses, the finite verb usually comes in second position. This is called V2 word order. So when Efter mötet comes first, the verb var has to come next:

• Efter mötet var allt så rörigt ...
• literally: After the meeting was everything so messy ...

If you started with the subject instead, it would be:

• Allt var så rörigt efter mötet ...

Both are possible, but the original version emphasizes when it happened.

Because of the Swedish V2 rule.

In a main clause, the finite verb must be the second element, not necessarily the second word. Here:

1. Efter mötet = first element
2. var = finite verb, so it must come second
3. allt = subject, which comes after the verb

So:

• Efter mötet var allt så rörigt ...

This often feels unusual to English speakers, because English would usually keep the subject before the verb:

• After the meeting, everything was so messy ...

Allt means everything.

In this sentence:

• Efter mötet var allt så rörigt ...
• After the meeting, everything was so messy/confusing ...

It refers generally to the whole situation, not to one specific object.

Because allt is grammatically treated as a neuter word, and adjectives must agree with it.

The adjective is rörig in its basic form, and the -t form is used with neuter singular nouns:

• en rörig situation = a messy situation
• ett rörigt möte = a messy meeting
• allt var rörigt = everything was messy

So rörigt is the correct form because of allt.

Rörigt can mean:

• messy
• disorganized
• confusing
• chaotic

In this sentence, it probably means something like confusing and disorganized, not physically messy.

So:

• allt var så rörigt = everything was so confusing/disorganized

Så ... att means so ... that.

In the sentence:

• allt var så rörigt att hon bad sin kollega att förklara planen igen
• everything was so confusing that she asked her colleague to explain the plan again

This structure shows result:

• så rörigt = so confusing
• att ... = that ...

Other examples:

• Han var så trött att han somnade.
  = He was so tired that he fell asleep.
• Det var så kallt att vi gick hem.
  = It was so cold that we went home.

Because the two att's have different jobs.

1. så rörigt att ...
   Here att means that and introduces a result clause.

2. bad sin kollega att förklara ...
   Here att is the infinitive marker, like to in English:

   • to explain

So:

• first att = that
• second att = to

This is very common in Swedish.

No. Bad here is the past tense of be, which means to ask or to request.

• be = ask/request
• ber = asks/is asking
• bad = asked
• bett = asked (supine/past participle in some uses)

So:

• hon bad sin kollega = she asked her colleague

It is not connected to English bad.

Because sin is a reflexive possessive. It refers back to the subject of the clause, which is hon.

• hon bad sin kollega = she asked her own colleague
• hon bad hennes kollega = she asked someone else’s colleague

So sin is used when the possessor is the same as the subject of that clause.

This is an important difference in Swedish:

• Lisa ringde sin mamma. = Lisa called her own mother.
• Lisa ringde hennes mamma. = Lisa called another woman’s mother.

Because the form of the reflexive possessive depends on the noun that follows.

• sin → for en-words singular
• sitt → for ett-words singular
• sina → for plural nouns

Since kollega is an en-word and singular, the correct form is:

• sin kollega

Examples:

• sin bok = his/her own book
• sitt hus = his/her own house
• sina böcker = his/her own books

Because förklara något means explain something directly.

So:

• förklara planen = explain the plan

You do not need a preposition here.

Compare:

• förklara planen = explain the plan
• berätta om planen = tell about the plan

Different verbs take different patterns.

Igen means again.

Here:

• förklara planen igen = explain the plan again

In Swedish, igen often comes after the thing being repeated or near the end of the clause.

Compare:

• Hon läste boken igen. = She read the book again.
• Kan du säga det igen? = Can you say that again?

Its placement in the original sentence is very natural.

Yes. Mötet is the definite singular form of möte:

• ett möte = a meeting
• mötet = the meeting

So in Efter mötet, the sentence means after the meeting, not just after a meeting.

This also tells you that möte is an ett-word.

Yes, essentially. The verb be often takes:

• the person being asked
• plus an infinitive phrase describing what they are asked to do

So in:

• hon bad sin kollega att förklara planen igen

you can break it down like this:

• hon = she
• bad = asked
• sin kollega = her colleague
• att förklara planen igen = to explain the plan again

So the whole idea means:

• she asked her colleague to explain the plan again

Sometimes be can mean pray in certain contexts, but not here.

In modern everyday Swedish, be usually means:

• ask
• request

You would understand hon bad sin kollega att förklara planen igen only as:

• she asked her colleague to explain the plan again

The context makes that completely clear.

It breaks down like this:

• Efter mötet = after the meeting
• var allt så rörigt = everything was so confusing/disorganized
• att = that
• hon bad sin kollega = she asked her colleague
• att förklara planen igen = to explain the plan again

So the full structure is:

time expression + main clause + result clause

Or more abstractly:

After X, Y was so Z that A asked B to do C.

This is a very common and useful Swedish sentence pattern.