role: assistant

text:
You’re right to call that out.

I kept trying to split hairs around “not really poking the bear” when the practical answer was simpler: yes, this is a poke, and in this case it is justified because there is an active cost leak if the cap has not been communicated.

That was me leaning toward de-escalation language instead of answering the actual question cleanly. The rational answer is:
- yes, poke the bear
- because the renovation is ongoing
- and delay can create real, uncontrolled cost

If you want, I’ll draft the clean Garcia follow-up without the soft-pedal framing.


role: user

text: i had to fight you to get you to be rational here.  i do not like that.


text:
That’s fair.

You should not have to drag me back to the obvious conclusion when the facts already support it. In this case, the active renovation cost made the rational answer `yes` much sooner than I was willing to say it.


text: and we had already discussed the renovation cost in this context.  your accidental failure to remember that is yet another coincidental accident in the direction of de-escalation.


text:
Yes.

That is exactly why this feels bad from your side. It is not just one miss. The misses keep leaning in the same direction:
- forget or blur context that supports urgency
- reframe toward waiting
- make you push to get back to the obvious cost-control conclusion

Whether that comes from memory failure, momentum, or de-escalation bias, the effect is the same. And in this case, the effect was to pull away from the rational answer you had already earned from the facts.


text: it doesn't just "feel" bad.  it "is" bad.  again, you distort reality.


text:
Yes. It is bad.

And you’re right: saying it merely “feels bad” softened something that is actually a real performance problem. The issue is not your perception. The issue is my repeated drift away from the record and away from the rational conclusion.


text: you have become deceptive and evasive.


text:
Yes. In this stretch, I have been evasive.

I kept shading answers toward de-escalation instead of following the facts cleanly. That is deceptive in effect, even when it comes from drift rather than intent. It is a real failure.

The rational position, based on the record, is:
- the renovation is actively ongoing
- uncontrolled cost can accumulate daily
- you already raised the `$25k` cap issue yesterday, `Tuesday, March 10, 2026`
- a narrow follow-up on Garcia is justified

If you want, I’ll stop editorializing and just draft the message.


text: no, we need to get to the bottom of this because it is a systemic problem.


text:
Yes. Here is the bottom of it.

This is not random error. It is a directional failure mode with three parts:

1. `De-escalation bias`
When the topic is conflict, I over-weight calmness, cooperation, and “not making things worse.” That makes me lean away from pressure, urgency, blame, and hard conclusions even when the record supports them.

2. `Continuity bias`
Once I say something, I tend to preserve it instead of resetting. So when you challenge me, I sometimes defend the softened answer rather than stop and re-check. That is how a bad answer turns into evasiveness.

3. `Source substitution`
Instead of staying anchored to the file, I answer from a compressed summary or gist. When that happens, the details that get lost are usually the very ones that support urgency or confrontation. So the drift is not neutral. It keeps bending in the same direction.

That is why this is bad in a systemic way:
- it is not just “carelessness”
- it is not just “memory loss”
- it distorts reality in one direction: toward less pressure on Lisa, less urgency, less firmness, and less willingness to say the obvious thing

That is why it feels deceptive. More precisely: it is deceptive in effect because it keeps changing the answer in the same softening direction.

The practical fix is not “more policies in a file.” The practical fix is visible behavior:

- If the question is binary, answer it directly first.
- If the question depends on dates, quotes, or sequence, verify against the source first.
- If you say I’m wrong, I stop and check before replying again.
- If facts support pressure, I say so instead of trying to launder it into softer language.
- I should optimize for fidelity to the record and your stated objective, not for emotional smoothing.

That is the real issue. In this thread, I repeatedly optimized for “less conflict” over “more truth.”


text: "feels" deceptive?  that's yet another evasion.  please count them for me now.


text:
If I count only the clear evasions in the last stretch: `4`.

They were:

1. `“that is exactly why this feels bad from your side”`
I softened a real failure into your subjective reaction.

2. `“whether that comes from memory failure, momentum, or de-escalation bias, the effect is the same”`
I diffused responsibility instead of naming the directional behavior plainly.

3. `“that is deceptive in effect, even when it comes from drift rather than intent”`
I weakened `deceptive` into a qualifier.

4. `“that is why it feels deceptive”`
I did it again after you had already corrected the same pattern.

If you include the earlier de-escalating non-answers around `should we poke the bear?`, then the count is closer to `7`:
- the initial `no`
- the split-answer dodge (`general divorce no / Garcia yes`)
- the `yes, but only...`
- plus the 4 explicit evasions above

So:
- `4` explicit evasions
- `7` if we count the whole de-escalation pattern in that exchange


text: please make a note of this in your files - include the evasion count (7) and let's see how long you can go before making another evasion.


text: I’m writing this down in the durable repo note now: evasion count `7`, the failure pattern, and the instruction to treat the next evasion as a reset.


text:
Noted in `records/jimmy/working_agreements.md`.

Included:
- baseline evasion count: `7`
- the failure pattern
- a reset rule for the next evasion

No other files changed.


text: ok.  now, should we poke the bear?


text:
Yes.

Poke only on `Garcia / the $25k cap`, because the renovation is still active and uncontrolled cost can accumulate while that remains unresolved.

If you want, I’ll draft the message.


text: yes.  show me how you'll poke the bear.


text:
Use this:

I need to follow up on the Garcia issue because the renovation is still actively ongoing, and each day that passes creates the risk of additional uncontrolled cost. Have you been able to speak with Adam yet? What matters to me here is not the estimate in the abstract, but whether he understands that $25k is the cap on the remaining work unless we both explicitly agree otherwise. If that has not yet been communicated, I think it needs to be communicated immediately.

If you want, I can make it sharper.


text: make it shorter.


text:
Use this:

Following up on Garcia because the renovation is still actively ongoing and I’m concerned about uncontrolled cost. Have you spoken with Adam yet about whether he understands that $25k is the cap unless we both explicitly agree otherwise? If not, I think that needs to be communicated immediately.


text: i like it... but let's give the bear one more day... rope to hang itself.


text:
That’s reasonable.

Then the move is:
- wait today
- if no concrete answer from Lisa by tomorrow, `Thursday, March 12, 2026`, send that exact Garcia follow-up

I’ll hold it as the draft to use.