role: user

text: pull messages


role: assistant

text: Refreshing Lisa’s thread with the local sync script, then I’ll give you just the newest messages.


text: The sync picked up newer rows after that stale tail. I’m grabbing the actual latest few now.


text:
Newest from Lisa:

- `2026-03-10 16:56 CT`: she says she’s concerned about the renovation too and will send the Garcia numbers as soon as she gets them.
- She confirms the renovation is still actively ongoing:
  - plumbing completed
  - electrics are in
  - framing approval expected tomorrow, then drywall
  - bathtub is in
- `2026-03-10 16:58 CT`: she says she expects the last amount needed will be around `$25k`, as expected.
- `2026-03-10 16:58 CT`: she liked your Allison message.

My read:
- This is the first clear confirmation that the project is still moving.
- She’s still giving you an estimate, not actual Garcia numbers.
- Her `$25k` line matters because it sounds like she is treating that as the remaining exposure baseline.


text: what do you suggest we do about Garcia?


text:
I’d do three things, in this order:

1. Turn the estimate into a document request.
2. Reassert the `$25k` as a cap, not an open tab.
3. Freeze any new scope until the numbers are real.

Right now you have:
- `2026-03-10`: Lisa says work is still ongoing.
- `2026-03-10`: Lisa estimates the remaining amount will be about `$25k`.
- But you still do not have the actual Garcia numbers.

That means you have a narrative, not a budget.

What I’d ask for specifically:
- current Garcia balance
- total paid to date
- remaining-to-complete estimate
- what that estimate includes
- what it does not include
- whether any change orders are pending
- whether the `$25k` is meant to be a not-to-exceed number or just a guess

And substantively, I’d hold this line:
- no additional expansion of scope
- no drawing down more general savings beyond the previously discussed cap unless both of you explicitly agree after seeing the written numbers
- safety / code / already-committed completion work can be treated differently if needed

So the posture is:
- `I’m not refusing the renovation.`
- `I’m refusing to fund a moving target without written numbers.`

If you want, I can draft the actual text to Lisa.


text:
we've already asked her many of these questions.

instead of your questions - let's focus on this - is Garcia aware of the $25k cap?  this is important.


text:
Yes. That’s the right pressure point now.

You already asked for numbers. Re-asking the whole bundle just creates loops. The live issue is operational control:

- work is ongoing
- she is saying the remaining amount will be about `$25k`
- but unless Garcia has actually been told there is a hard cap, that number does not protect you

That is the useful question:
`Has Garcia actually been told that $25k is the maximum remaining amount we are authorizing absent further discussion and explicit agreement?`

And I’d go one step further:
- ask whether they have acknowledged that cap
- ask whether any work is continuing on the assumption of costs beyond it

Clean version:

I understand your estimate is that the remaining amount will be around $25k. What I need to know is whether Garcia has actually been told that $25k is the cap on the remaining work unless we both explicitly agree otherwise. If they have, did they acknowledge that? If they have not, that concerns me, because otherwise the project is still effectively open-ended.

That’s tighter and more useful than another generic “please send numbers” request.


text: yep.  i like it.  send it.


text: I’m saving that exact Garcia-cap text to the outbox first, then I’ll send the same file verbatim to Lisa.


text: Draft is saved. Sending that exact file to Lisa now, no wording changes.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-10_to_lisa_garcia_25k_cap_question.txt`.