Lisa — that makes complete sense, and I agree: we shouldn’t evaluate 30% in isolation.

My intent with 30% wasn’t “ignore the rest”; it was a clean, predictable structure that doesn’t require touching the trust corpus (since it’s locked and I’m not a beneficiary).

I’m very aligned with having counsel help us model the full picture (assets + debts + ongoing obligations) so we can see how a percentage structure would interact with everything else.

One reason I’m pushing for a simple percentage as a starting point is to avoid two other common shapes these negotiations drift into, which are both more complex and tend to get expensive:

- Budget-driven interim support: detailed budgets, line-by-line negotiation over what counts, reimbursements, and periodic true-ups.
- A step-down + catch-up structure: higher “bridge” support for a period plus a separate retirement catch-up component. It can end up costing more overall than a clean percentage.