role: user

text: no.  cut everything after "I'm not asking"


role: assistant

text: Lisa — that makes sense. To keep this efficient and avoid a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, I’d like counsel to model a simple long-term framework as the starting point: a 30% split of your gross trust disbursement stream to me (plus a life-insurance backstop). I’m not asking you to agree to it over text.


text: no, cut the "I'm not..." and add something equivalent to "Otherwise, it's going to get crazy, fast.  Keep that in mind when you talk to Susan"


text: Lisa — that makes sense. To keep this efficient and avoid a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, I’d like counsel to model a simple long-term framework as the starting point: a 30% split of your gross trust disbursement stream to me (plus a life-insurance backstop). Otherwise, this is going to get crazy, fast — please keep that in mind when you talk to Susan.


text: no, reword it so that it doesn't sound like a crazy person please.


text:
<turn_aborted>
The user interrupted the previous turn on purpose. Any running unified exec processes were terminated. If any tools/commands were aborted, they may have partially executed; verify current state before retrying.
</turn_aborted>


text: sorry, continue.


text: Lisa — that makes sense. To keep this efficient and minimize legal overhead, I’d like counsel to model a simple long-term starting point: 30% of your gross trust disbursement stream to me (plus a life-insurance backstop). Without a clean anchor like that, I worry the discussions will get complicated and expensive quickly. Please keep that in mind when you talk to Susan.


text: ok - the opening sentence sounds like we're suggesting it for the first time, but in fact we started this conversation by suggesting it.  can you review the full context of the conversation?


text:
In-context: Lisa already has the “30% framework” in her head (she referenced it multiple times yesterday, including asking how interim relates to it and saying she understood why a predictable percentage feels clean). Her latest message (3/5 Susan Amato appointment) is specifically asking what to tee up for counsel.

Reworded to reflect that this is *not new*:

Lisa — re the 30% framework we’ve been discussing: I still think it’s the cleanest way to keep this efficient and minimize legal overhead (30% of your gross trust disbursement stream to me, plus a life-insurance backstop). Without a simple anchor like that, I worry the modeling and negotiation will get complicated and expensive quickly. Please keep that in mind when you talk to Susan.


text: send it.


text: Saving your exact text to `.Jimmy/outbound/` and running a Messages dry-run preview (no send yet) so we can verify it’s byte-for-byte what will go out.


text:
**Dry-run preview (not sent yet)**

Lisa — re the 30% framework we’ve been discussing: I still think it’s the cleanest way to keep this efficient and minimize legal overhead (30% of your gross trust disbursement stream to me, plus a life-insurance backstop). Without a simple anchor like that, I worry the modeling and negotiation will get complicated and expensive quickly. Please keep that in mind when you talk to Susan.

Confirm “send exactly this” and I’ll send it.


text: send exactly this


text: Sent to Lisa (+1 314 737 2144) exactly as previewed.


text: pull messages.


text:
Latest (Lisa, 2026-02-24 7:15 PM PT):

> When you say 30% is the cleanest and most efficient framework, I want to understand what you’re comparing it to. As opposed to what alternative structure?
>
> I’m not opposed to percentage-based approaches. I just want to make sure we’re evaluating it against actual modeled options rather than assuming complexity where there may not be any.


text: say something like


text: what is the fairest way to compute support and retirement equalization in a divorce?


text: ok, no.  let's just say something like "determining support and retirement equalization is going to be a mess.  you'll see when you talk to Susan."


text: Lisa — I’m comparing it to the more typical approach of modeling support and retirement equalization off budgets, durations, and a bunch of assumptions, which can turn into a lot of back-and-forth and legal time. Susan can walk us through the modeled options; my point is just that starting with a clean percentage anchor can keep it simpler and cheaper.


text: remove "Susan can walk.." and the rest.


text: Lisa — I’m comparing it to the more typical approach of modeling support and retirement equalization off budgets, durations, and a bunch of assumptions, which can turn into a lot of back-and-forth and legal time.


text: remove the constant "Lisa -" she knows her name, you don't need to keep saying it.


text: I’m comparing it to the more typical approach of modeling support and retirement equalization off budgets, durations, and a bunch of assumptions, which can turn into a lot of back-and-forth and legal time.


text: add "and uncertainty down the road."


text: I’m comparing it to the more typical approach of modeling support and retirement equalization off budgets, durations, and a bunch of assumptions, which can turn into a lot of back-and-forth, legal time, and uncertainty down the road.


text: send it!


text:
Dry-run preview (not sent yet):

I’m comparing it to the more typical approach of modeling support and retirement equalization off budgets, durations, and a bunch of assumptions, which can turn into a lot of back-and-forth, legal time, and uncertainty down the road.

Confirm “send exactly this” and I’ll send it.


text: and add another bit "And mostly, I feel like it's very fair and what we would have done if we had the foresight/advice."


text:
Dry-run preview (not sent yet):

Also, I think 30% is genuinely fair, and it’s close to what I believe we would have done years ago if we’d had better advice/foresight about the trust structure.

Confirm “send exactly this” and I’ll send it.


text: send exactly this


text: also add - "For example - it's what Richard suggested when i told him about the imbalance."


text: Drafting a short follow-up text about Richard, saving it to `.Jimmy/outbound/`, then I’ll show you the dry-run preview for approval before sending.


text:
Dry-run preview (not sent yet):

For example, it’s what Richard suggested when I told him about the imbalance.

Confirm “send exactly this” and I’ll send it.


text: pull messages


text:
New latest from Lisa (2026-02-24 7:33 PM PT):

> One thing I want to make sure we model clearly is how any long-term percentage structure would interact with future income changes. If your employment situation changes materially — whether up or down — I think it’s important that whatever we agree to reflects actual financial reality over time rather than locking in assumptions from this moment.
>
> That’s another reason I’d prefer to have counsel model duration and modifiability explicitly alongside any percentage framework.


text: i want to ask her earnestly - if i had suggested the postnuptual agreement before this divorce thing, can you honestly say you would have objected?


text: Real question: if I’d proposed this exact postnuptial framework before any divorce talk, when we were on good terms, do you think you would have objected? I’m trying to separate whether your concerns are about the structure itself, or about doing it now in a divorce context.


text: send


text:
Dry-run preview (not sent yet):

Real question: if I’d proposed this exact postnuptial framework before any divorce talk, when we were on good terms, do you think you would have objected? I’m trying to separate whether your concerns are about the structure itself, or about doing it now in a divorce context.

Confirm “send exactly this” and I’ll send it.


text: add more - say, yes of course, you need to get legal advice.  please do.


text:
Dry-run preview (not sent yet):

Real question: if I’d proposed this exact postnuptial framework before any divorce talk, when we were on good terms, do you think you would have objected? I’m trying to separate whether your concerns are about the structure itself, or about doing it now in a divorce context.

And yes, of course: please get whatever legal advice you need on your side.

Confirm “send exactly this” and I’ll send it.


text: Sent to Lisa (+1 314 737 2144) exactly as previewed.


text: pull messages.


text:
New from Lisa (2026-02-24 7:43 PM PT):

> I don’t think that’s a helpful comparison. Decisions made inside an intact marriage are different from decisions made in a separation context where assets, debts, employment, duration, and long-term sustainability all need to be modeled explicitly.
>
> My questions aren’t at all about rejecting the idea of a percentage framework. They’re about making sure whatever we agree to is structured correctly now, with clear terms around duration, modifiability, employment assumptions, and how it interacts with the broader financial picture.


text: i'd like to reply


text:
<turn_aborted>
The user interrupted the previous turn on purpose. Any running unified exec processes were terminated. If any tools/commands were aborted, they may have partially executed; verify current state before retrying.
</turn_aborted>


text: i'd like to reply "whether or not you think it's helpful, it is the crux of my beliefs.  and i think you know it's true."


text: no.. say something like this "whether or not you think it's helpful, i believe it is the heart of the matter, and it is not going away."


text: Whether or not you think it’s helpful, I believe it’s the heart of the matter, and it isn’t going away.


text: refine it.


text: Even if you don’t think it’s a helpful comparison, I do think it’s the heart of the matter for me, and it isn’t going away.


text: send it.


text:
Dry-run preview (not sent yet):

Even if you don’t think it’s a helpful comparison, I do think it’s the heart of the matter for me, and it isn’t going away.

Confirm “send exactly this” and I’ll send it.


text: send exactly this


text: pull messages


text:
New from Lisa (2026-02-24 7:52 PM PT):

> I just want to be clear that I wasn’t rejecting the 30% idea. I hear you on why you see it as clean and efficient. I just want it properly modeled in context before we treat it as the anchor.