role: user

text: send please.


role: assistant

text: Saving the exact text first, then sending that exact version.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-13_to_lisa_not_unpacking_calculations_by_text_before_mediation.txt`.


text: pull messages


text: Pulling the latest Lisa thread again now. I’ll sync the bounded window and summarize only what changed.


text:
New from Lisa at `2026-03-13 13:13 CT`:

- She says she is trying to run the numbers on her side to see what it would take to get you to retirement security comparable to what you expected during the marriage.
- She asks you to help her do that by giving her some of the assumptions you’re using.
- She offers to share an example of what she’s looking at on her side and asks for an example from your side in return.
- She says that, from her perspective, after debts wipe out savings, she may be:
  - supporting Juno fully
  - covering your mom’s expenses
  - paying your support percentage
  - and that this leaves a pretty low monthly number on her side
- She says she is not trying to settle everything by text, but is trying to see whether what you’re asking for is actually possible, and says she can’t do that without more clarity about your calculations.

That’s the only new inbound since your last reply.


text: how should we reply?


text:
I’d hold the line.

She’s trying to pull you back into a spreadsheet fight by text. Even if her tone is more constructive, the format is still bad.

I’d send this:

```text
I understand that you’re trying to see what is actually possible, and I appreciate that. But I don’t think it’s productive for us to keep trading assumptions and calculations by text, especially given how contentious this conversation has become. If you want to share what you’re modeling on your side, you can, but I think the right place for us to compare numbers, assumptions, and constraints is mediation.
```

Why this works:
- acknowledges her effort
- does not concede the text-based process
- allows her to volunteer her side if she wants
- keeps your detailed numbers reserved for mediation

If you want, I can make it firmer.


text: send it


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-13_to_lisa_compare_numbers_in_mediation_not_text.txt`.


text:
New from Lisa at `2026-03-13 13:24 CT`:

- She says she thinks you should `pause on trying to agree to a framework for now`.
- Her reason: until she has answers to the questions she’s been asking, she does not feel she has enough information to say whether the structure you’re proposing actually works, so she is `not in a position to agree to it yet`.
- She notes that you were the one who suggested trying to align on a broad framework before mediation, and says she has been making a real effort to do that.
- She says her questions were part of trying to understand how the numbers fit together, not trying to be contentious.
- She says that if you prefer to go through all of that in mediation instead, that is fine, but then she thinks you should `wait until then rather than expecting agreement before looking at the details`.

Substantively: she is withdrawing from informal framework agreement unless you provide the numbers now. She is explicitly moving the discussion to mediation on that basis.


text: how should we respond?


text:
I’d close it cleanly and agree to the pause.

Use this:

```text
Understood. I appreciate the effort you’ve made to engage this directly. If we’re not in a position to agree on the framework without getting into detailed numbers and assumptions by text, then I agree we should pause and take the rest to mediation.
```

I would not add anything else.


text: send


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-13_to_lisa_agree_pause_and_take_rest_to_mediation.txt`.