role: user

text: pull messages


role: assistant

text: Syncing Lisa’s thread again, then I’ll give you the exact newest messages from the file.


text:
Latest from Lisa:

- `2026-03-12 09:00:36 CDT`: she sent an attachment-only message. The text body is empty in the sync, so this is an image or file bubble.
- Just before that, your last sent message is the Garcia / Allison / Snow Day note at `08:51:42 CDT`.

No text reply from her yet beyond the attachment bubble.

If you want, I can pull attachment metadata from the Lisa thread so we can see what she sent without guessing.


text: yes please


text: I’m pulling the latest Lisa messages with attachment metadata so we can see what that new bubble actually is.


text:
The new attachment is an image:

- `IMG_9831.heic`
- path: `~/Library/Messages/Attachments/98/08/A9DCC3A0-5E18-4956-A421-3EEC8C380F27/IMG_9831.heic`

If you want, I can open it and tell you what it is.


text: yes please.  stop stalling


text: Opening the attachment now so I can tell you exactly what she sent.


text: HEIC won’t render directly here. I’m converting a copy to PNG inside the repo so I can inspect it without touching the original.


text: The conversion is still running or hung. I’m polling once, then I’ll open the PNG if it landed.


text: `sips` choked on the write. I’m using a one-shot macOS image conversion path instead and then I’ll open the PNG.


text: Polling the thumbnail conversion.


text: The converted preview is ready. Opening the actual generated PNG now.


text:
She sent a screenshot of her text to Adam.

What it says:

- `Scott said he’s been hard to get ahold of :) Hey also, next week we will be out of town for a few days - bring me a lock box and I’ll stick a key in it`
- then:
  - `Also — we would like to keep the remaining work under $25k if possible. Could we treat that number as a cap for now, and then if anything comes up that would go beyond that, we can review it together before moving forward?`

So:
- she has now actually communicated something about the cap
- but it is softer than what you asked for

The weak spots are:
- `under $25k if possible`
- `cap for now`
- `if anything comes up ... we can review it together`

That is not the same as:
- `$25k is the cap unless we both explicitly agree otherwise`

So this is movement, but not full compliance with what you asked.


text: what should we do?


text:
Treat this as partial progress, not resolution.

What she sent Adam is too soft:
- `under $25k if possible`
- `cap for now`

That leaves room for overrun.

What I’d do:
1. Acknowledge that she did send something.
2. Ask for one follow-up clarification, in explicit authorization language.
3. Then wait for Adam’s response.

The key language is:
- `$25k is the authorization limit`
- `no work beyond that without explicit prior approval from both of you`

Suggested message to Lisa:

```text
Thank you for sending that. I appreciate your following through with Adam.

The only concern I have is that “under $25k if possible” and “cap for now” still leave the door open. What I need communicated is more explicit: that $25k is the authorization limit on the remaining work, and that no work beyond that should proceed without explicit prior agreement from both of us.

Could you send that clarification to him as well?
```

That is the clean next move.


text: send it.


text: Saving the exact text to outbox, then sending that file verbatim.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_clarify_25k_authorization_limit.txt`.


text: pull messages


text: Syncing Lisa’s thread again and reading the tail from the local JSONL so I can give you the exact newest messages.


text:
Latest from Lisa:

- `2026-03-12 09:05:56 CDT`:
  `I hear what you’re saying, but I’m comfortable with the way I worded it and I’m going to handle the communication with Adam myself. I don’t want to keep going back and refining messages after they’re sent. I’ll keep you updated on the numbers as we get them.`

Just before that:
- `09:00:36 CDT`: she sent the screenshot of her text to Adam
- `09:04:11 CDT`: you asked her to clarify that `$25k` is the authorization limit and no work beyond that should proceed without explicit prior agreement from both of you

So the current state is:
- she is refusing to send the stronger cap language
- she is keeping control of the Adam communication
- she is promising only to update you when the numbers come in


text: what should we say?


text:
I would stop arguing about her wording and put your position on the record plainly.

Use this:

```text
Understood. Then I want to be explicit on my side: I do not authorize remaining renovation work above $25k, and I do not agree to any work beyond that without explicit prior agreement from both of us. Please proceed with Adam and Garcia on that basis, and let me know immediately if he indicates the remaining work will exceed that limit.
```

Why this is the right move:
- it stops the loop about “refining messages”
- it clearly states your non-authorization
- it gives you a clean record if costs run past that anyway

If you want, I can tighten it further.


text: send it


text: Saving the exact text to outbox, then I’ll send that file verbatim.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_nonauthorization_above_25k.txt`.


text: Syncing Lisa’s thread again, then I’ll give you the exact newest messages from the file.


text:
Latest from Lisa, `2026-03-12 09:11:17 CDT`:

`I understand your position on the $25k limit. I’m continuing to work with Adam to get the updated numbers, and we can review them together before any additional work is approved. I’m not going to manage this as unilateral authorizations on either side.`

Current state:
- she acknowledges your `$25k` position
- she is still routing through Adam for updated numbers
- she is now saying `any additional work` will be reviewed together before approval
- she is explicitly rejecting unilateral authorization by either side

That is better than where it was a few minutes ago, but it is still not the same as Garcia having a hard cap in hand.


text:
I’d keep it narrow and lock in the part she just conceded.

Use this:

```text
Understood. Reviewing the updated numbers together before any additional work is approved is what I’m asking for. Please send me the numbers as soon as you have them, and please flag it immediately if Adam indicates the remaining work will exceed $25k.
```

I would not mix in Allison or Snow Day in this reply. This one should just close the Garcia loop cleanly.


text: my concern is that the currenly approved work will exceed $25k .


text:
Yes. That is the remaining hole in her reply.

What she answered:
- no `additional` work will be approved unilaterally

What she did not answer:
- whether the work already underway / already authorized is itself going to run past `$25k`

That is the point to press.

I’d say:

```text
My concern is not just additional work beyond the current scope. My concern is that the work already underway or already understood to be approved may itself exceed $25k. So when you get the updated numbers, what I need clarified is whether the currently authorized scope can actually be completed within that limit, or whether Adam already expects the existing scope to run over it.
```

If you want it firmer:

```text
My concern is not future additions to scope. My concern is that the work already underway may itself exceed $25k. So when you get the updated numbers, I need clarity on whether the currently authorized scope can actually be completed within that limit. If Adam already expects the existing scope to run over it, I need to know that immediately.
```


text: send the firmer version.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_current_scope_may_exceed_25k.txt`.


text:
Newest from Lisa:

- `2026-03-12 09:14:09 CDT`: `I know.`

My read:
- she understood the distinction
- she did not argue with it
- she also did not add any new information

This is probably the end of the useful Garcia exchange until Adam gives numbers. I would not reply again right now.


text: what about the mediator and the offices?


text:
They’re both still unresolved.

`Mediator`
- She did not answer that part.
- Because I wrongly named `Jennifer Piper`, I would not treat her silence as agreement.
- Best next move is a clean separate follow-up that fixes that mistake and keeps it neutral:
  - `Since Allison still hasn’t responded, I’d like to move to another mediator from Sarah’s list rather than lose more time. Do you have a preference between Jennifer Piper and Elaine Pudlowski?`

`Offices`
- Also no answer yet.
- She was the one who raised `Snow Day and the office space`, so the issue is live.
- Your position is now on the record: wind it down, give up both spaces, move contents to storage.
- I would not push that again in the same burst of Garcia texts. It will land better as its own follow-up, especially if you want to turn it into an actual plan:
  - leases / notice periods
  - what’s in each space
  - what has to be kept
  - what can be discarded
  - storage options

So my recommendation:
1. Leave Garcia alone until Adam produces numbers.
2. Follow up separately on the mediator, correcting my bad insertion.
3. Leave the offices for a second separate note unless you need to stop rent immediately.

If you want, I can draft the corrected mediator message now.


text: we'll ignore your bad insertion.  i'll assume you chose randomly and that's fine.


text:
Understood.

Then the mediator question is simple: do you want to send a follow-up now asking her to move ahead with Jennifer Piper, or wait a bit longer for Allison?


text: what should we say?


text:
I’d keep it to the mediator for now and leave the offices for a separate note.

Use this:

```text
On mediation, since we still haven’t heard back from Allison and I don’t want to lose more time, I think we should go ahead and reach out to Jennifer Piper.
```

If you want to include the office point in the same message, I’d use:

```text
On mediation, since we still haven’t heard back from Allison and I don’t want to lose more time, I think we should go ahead and reach out to Jennifer Piper.

And on the office space, my view remains that we should wind things down, give up both the Snow Day office and my studio, and move the contents into storage rather than continue carrying the overhead.
```


text: pull messages


text:
Latest from Lisa, synced through `2026-03-12 09:18:06 CDT`:

- She says she’s looking at what it would actually take to shut down the offices.
- She’s not yet convinced it’s worth the cost and effort once moving, storage, and the printer are factored in.
- She says that at `$800/month total`, it may make more sense to do it slowly rather than rush it.
- She asks you to look into options on your side too.
- She says she’d love to find a way to sell the printer.

No new mediator update in that message.


text:
Newest from Lisa:

- `2026-03-12 09:19:21 CDT`: `I’ll send an identical email out to the remaining mediators on the list.`

So:
- mediator issue is now moving
- office issue is still open, with her current view being “maybe do it slowly”
- Garcia is still waiting on numbers / Adam


text: we should warn her that as long as my financial stability is under threat, and as long as i'm in hospice with my mom, i probably won't have time to find a buyer for the printer.


text:
Use this:

```text
Thank you for reaching out to the remaining mediators.

On the printer specifically, I want to set expectations clearly: as long as my financial stability is unresolved, and while I’m caring for my mom in hospice, I probably will not have the time or bandwidth to take on finding a buyer for it. If selling it is something we want to pursue in the near term, that will likely need to be led from your side, or else deferred until things are more stable.
```

If you want, I can make it firmer or shorter.


text: send it


text: Saving the exact text to outbox, then I’ll send that file verbatim.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-12_to_lisa_printer_expectations_hospice_financial_instability.txt`.