role: user

text: pull messages


role: assistant

text:
Newer messages after that:

- 2026-02-24 7:55 PM (Lisa): “But if Jimmy makes 10 billion on one of your brilliant ideas, you start paying me alimony instead. :)”
- 2026-02-24 7:56 PM (You): “sweetie - i’m just trying to stay off the street.”
- 2026-02-24 7:56 PM (Lisa): “That won’t happen.”


text: what do you think?


text:
It reads like reassurance: she’s telling you she won’t let you end up on the street, and she’s keeping things warm/humane even while holding her line on “model it properly.”

If you reply at all, I’d keep it short and then pivot back to counsel, e.g.:

“Thank you. That helps. I agree we should get this modeled and written down so it’s concrete and sustainable.”


text: yeah but she's being dumb.  if we model it properly it's going to be more expensive for her.  and more expensive for me.  and the lawyers win because they always do.


text:
You’re not wrong to worry about the “lawyer tax” if this turns into open-ended modeling.

But her ask to model “duration/modifiability/employment changes” isn’t dumb; it’s basically her saying “let’s write something that won’t blow up later and cost even more to renegotiate.”

How to keep it from getting crazy:

- Treat **30% (+ life insurance)** as the *anchor*, and have counsel do a **bounded sanity-check** against the baseline numbers (not a blank-check analysis).
- Ask for **2–3 modeled options max**, then decide.
- Timebox it: “Please keep this to **X hours** unless we explicitly approve more.”
- Push for a **1-page term sheet** first; draft long form only after you both agree on terms.

If you want to text her something along those lines, I can draft it in your voice and keep it non-combative.