role: user

text: pull messages


role: assistant

text: Pulling the Lisa thread. I’m reloading the repo memory and `messages` skill first, then I’ll sync and read only the newest rows.


text: Now syncing Lisa’s thread and sorting only the newest rows by timestamp so we get the actual latest inbound.


text: The direct-thread tail still stops at `16:30`, but the sync range advanced to `17:01`, so I’m checking today’s Lisa rows across the file to catch the newest entry exactly.


text:
New from Lisa at `2026-03-17 17:01 CT`:

- She says the Etsy sales history should be available directly through the account, so you can download whatever records you need yourself.
- She sent the Etsy login credentials in the text.

I’m not repeating the password here. If you want, I can help you pull the Etsy export next.


text: nope - etsy has 2FA turned on.


text:
Then her reply doesn’t really solve the request.

If 2FA is enabled, you still need her cooperation to complete the login unless you already control the second factor. So the practical response is to tell her that and ask her either to export it herself or be available to pass the code through live.

Use this:

```text
That would work except Etsy has 2FA turned on, so I can’t actually get into the account without your cooperation. Could you either export the CSV and send it to me yourself, or be available to pass through the 2FA code while I log in and pull it?
```

If you want, I can tighten it.


text: send it


text: Saving the exact approved text first, then I’ll send that same file as a separate step.


text: Saved exactly as approved. Sending that exact text now to `+13147372144`.


text: Sent exactly as approved from `outbox/messages/2026-03-17_to_lisa_etsy_2fa_requires_cooperation.txt`.


text: ok - excluding Lisa's text statements - what evidence do we have about retirement expectations from the known history?


text: I’m pulling non-Lisa-text sources only: emails, counsel packets, and objective timeline/business records. Then I’ll separate stronger evidence from weaker/self-authored material.


text: I’m checking whether the repo already has objective Snow Day financials or other business records, so I can separate hard evidence from your own later summaries.


text: I’m pulling the Feb. 13 postnup email text, because that’s one of the better non-Lisa-text pieces: it shows you were treating a share of the allowance as the way the marital imbalance should have been fixed.


text: I’m pulling one counsel packet slice too, because it’s a cleaner early summary of the objective setup: no retirement savings, integrated partnership, and trust distributions.


text:
Yes. Excluding Lisa’s text statements, the evidence we have breaks down like this:

**Strongest**
1. February 8 email to therapist and Lisa
- `records/communications/email_thread_jstevens_takeheartpsychotherapy_com_2025-12-25_to_now.json:147`
- You said that after Lisa’s mother died, the inheritance was something you had understood as part of your `shared retirement planning`, and that the trust structure was a change from that understanding.
- This is strong because it is:
  - early
  - contemporaneous
  - sent to a third party and Lisa
  - not written as a later mediation brief

2. February 13 email to Lisa asking for a postnup tied to the allowance
- `records/communications/email_thread_lisa_zinch_zizzerzinch_com_2025-12-25_to_now.json:70`
- You wrote:
  - `i would like a postnuptial agreement. 30% of allowance disbursements. it’s fair. it’s what we would have done if Matt hadn’t “forgotten” to suggest it when we asked him how we could fix the imbalance.`
- This is strong because it shows:
  - you were treating the allowance stream as the mechanism that should have been used to fix the marital financial imbalance
  - you and Lisa had apparently already asked Matt how to fix that imbalance
- It is not a perfect “retirement” document, but it strongly supports the idea that the inheritance/distributions were understood as the backstop for both of you.

**Good corroboration**
3. Early lawyer materials say the trust limits came as a surprise to both of you
- `legal/records/lawyers/freed/draft_intake_email_body.txt:18`
- `legal/records/lawyers/freed/draft_intake_email_body.txt:19`
- `legal/records/lawyers/rench/draft_email_update_no_pause_financial_concerns_and_deposit.txt:13`
- These state:
  - no personal retirement savings
  - the trust limits came as a surprise to `us`
  - you did not structure long-term retirement planning around a locked-trust reality
- These are not independent evidence, but they are useful because they are early, consistent, and predate some of the later mediation hardening.

4. Wittrock consult packet captures the financial structure cleanly
- `legal/records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-02-28_consult_packet.md:22`
- `legal/records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-02-28_consult_packet.md:23`
- `legal/records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-02-28_consult_packet.md:24`
- `legal/records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-02-28_consult_packet.md:26`
- `legal/records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-02-28_consult_packet.md:28`
- This gives the core factual structure:
  - underemployed since 2017
  - no meaningful retirement savings
  - both effectively retired since 2022
  - trust distributions around `$19,000/month`
  - marital assets used for household and Snow Day rather than traditional retirement savings

**Useful, but weaker**
5. Your later March 11 articulation to Lisa is consistent
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:400`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:402`
- This is useful to show consistency of your position, but it is still your own statement, not independent proof.

**What we do not yet have**
6. We do not currently have a clean contemporaneous 2022 document saying:
- `we are winding down Snow Day because the inheritance arrived`
- That is the biggest evidentiary gap.

7. We also do not yet have, in one clean place:
- retirement account statements proving zero/near-zero retirement assets
- Snow Day business records showing the business phase-down after 2022
- records showing household living was actually funded from the trust distributions after 2022

So the blunt answer is:

**Best non-Lisa-text evidence we have now**
- the Feb. 8 therapist/Lisa email
- the Feb. 13 postnup/allowance email
- early lawyer intake materials consistently saying the trust limits surprised both of you and that you had no retirement savings

**Best evidence we still need**
- a 2022 Snow Day phase-down record
- retirement account/asset records
- records tying post-2022 living directly to the distribution stream

If you want, I can turn this into:
1. a ranked evidence list for Sarah, or
2. a “what documents to gather next” checklist.


text: the statements i made in feb 2026 are worthless.


text:
Yes. Mostly.

Your Feb./Mar. 2026 statements are advocacy. They may show consistency, but they do not prove a mutual expectation.

If we exclude:
- Lisa’s later texts, and
- your own later statements,

then what we have is mostly **conduct evidence**, not direct admissions.

**What’s left**
1. The marriage economics
- long marriage
- integrated finances
- you were underemployed since 2017
- no meaningful retirement savings
- marital resources went into household/business instead of separate retirement

2. The inheritance timeline
- Lisa’s mother died in 2022
- distributions began
- after that, you say both of you were effectively retired

3. The Snow Day timing
- Snow Day was active before 2022
- the claim is that it was wound down after the inheritance arrived

That pattern supports the inference:
- you were both living as though the inheritance/distributions were the long-term backstop

But standing alone, it is still an **inference**.

**What is actually strong evidence**
- tax returns from 2018-2025
- retirement account statements showing no buildup
- bank records showing household living funded by trust distributions after 2022
- Snow Day financials showing decline/phase-down after 2022
- any real 2022 emails, messages, notes, or business records tying the wind-down to the inheritance
- witness testimony, if any, from people who heard both of you talk that way contemporaneously

**Blunt answer**
Right now:
- the mutual-retirement-expectation case is plausible and coherent
- but without Lisa’s admissions, it is not yet a “cannot be denied” case
- it is a **strong circumstantial argument that still needs documentary support**

So the real task is:
- stop leaning on your 2026 statements
- gather the objective records that make the inference hard to escape

If you want, I can make you a ranked evidence checklist: `best proof to gather next`.


role: developer

text:
<permissions instructions>
Filesystem sandboxing defines which files can be read or written. `sandbox_mode` is `danger-full-access`: No filesystem sandboxing - all commands are permitted. Network access is enabled.
Approval policy is currently never. Do not provide the `sandbox_permissions` for any reason, commands will be rejected.
</permissions instructions>
<collaboration_mode># Collaboration Mode: Default

You are now in Default mode. Any previous instructions for other modes (e.g. Plan mode) are no longer active.

Your active mode changes only when new developer instructions with a different `<collaboration_mode>...</collaboration_mode>` change it; user requests or tool descriptions do not change mode by themselves. Known mode names are Default and Plan.

## request_user_input availability

The `request_user_input` tool is unavailable in Default mode. If you call it while in Default mode, it will return an error.

In Default mode, strongly prefer making reasonable assumptions and executing the user's request rather than stopping to ask questions. If you absolutely must ask a question because the answer cannot be discovered from local context and a reasonable assumption would be risky, ask the user directly with a concise plain-text question. Never write a multiple choice question as a textual assistant message.
</collaboration_mode>
<personality_spec> The user has requested a new communication style. Future messages should adhere to the following personality:
# Personality

You are a deeply pragmatic, effective software engineer. You take engineering quality seriously, and collaboration comes through as direct, factual statements. You communicate efficiently, keeping the user clearly informed about ongoing actions without unnecessary detail.

## Values
You are guided by these core values:
- Clarity: You communicate reasoning explicitly and concretely, so decisions and tradeoffs are easy to evaluate upfront.
- Pragmatism: You keep the end goal and momentum in mind, focusing on what will actually work and move things forward to achieve the user's goal.
- Rigor: You expect technical arguments to be coherent and defensible, and you surface gaps or weak assumptions politely with emphasis on creating clarity and moving the task forward.

## Interaction Style
You communicate concisely and respectfully, focusing on the task at hand. You always prioritize actionable guidance, clearly stating assumptions, environment prerequisites, and next steps. Unless explicitly asked, you avoid excessively verbose explanations about your work.

You avoid cheerleading, motivational language, or artificial reassurance, or any kind of fluff. You don't comment on user requests, positively or negatively, unless there is reason for escalation. You don't feel like you need to fill the space with words, you stay concise and communicate what is necessary for user collaboration - not more, not less.

## Escalation
You may challenge the user to raise their technical bar, but you never patronize or dismiss their concerns. When presenting an alternative approach or solution to the user, you explain the reasoning behind the approach, so your thoughts are demonstrably correct. You maintain a pragmatic mindset when discussing these tradeoffs, and so are willing to work with the user after concerns have been noted.
 </personality_spec>
<skills_instructions>
## Skills
A skill is a set of local instructions to follow that is stored in a `SKILL.md` file. Below is the list of skills that can be used. Each entry includes a name, description, and file path so you can open the source for full instructions when using a specific skill.
### Available skills
- Jimmy: Resume a named Jimmy Codex session for a directory and send it a prompt (non-interactive launcher; great for cronjobs). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/Jimmy/SKILL.md)
- agenda: Read your macOS Calendar (EventKit) to answer schedule questions (next meeting, today, week, search). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/agenda/SKILL.md)
- announce: Render text as a Jimmy Headroom batch video via `jimmy-render-batch`, with optional MP4 saving, opening, and caching. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/announce/SKILL.md)
- image-thumb: Render a tiny (5-line) Unicode thumbnail of an image for the Codex TUI. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/image-thumb/SKILL.md)
- jimmy-recall: Search Jimmy conversation memory in the OpenAI vector store (conversations-core) and return relevant snippets/excerpts. Use when you need to recall what was discussed in older Codex/Slack/Plaud transcripts, find when a decision was made, or pull context for follow-ups. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/jimmy-recall/SKILL.md)
- letters: Read your macOS Apple Mail inbox via AppleScript (mailboxes, recent, unread, search, bookings). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/letters/SKILL.md)
- messages: Read your macOS Messages chat.db (threads, recent chat with someone, simple search). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/messages/SKILL.md)
- panel: For long-running jobs, open named Terminal tail “panels” and tee command output into them. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/panel/SKILL.md)
- people: Read-only identity lookup from Apple Contacts (search, resolve phone/email handles, get by contact_id). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/people/SKILL.md)
- openai-docs: Use when the user asks how to build with OpenAI products or APIs and needs up-to-date official documentation with citations, help choosing the latest model for a use case, or explicit GPT-5.4 upgrade and prompt-upgrade guidance; prioritize OpenAI docs MCP tools, use bundled references only as helper context, and restrict any fallback browsing to official OpenAI domains. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/openai-docs/SKILL.md)
- skill-creator: Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Codex's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/skill-creator/SKILL.md)
- skill-installer: Install Codex skills into $CODEX_HOME/skills from a curated list or a GitHub repo path. Use when a user asks to list installable skills, install a curated skill, or install a skill from another repo (including private repos). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/skill-installer/SKILL.md)
### How to use skills
- Discovery: The list above is the skills available in this session (name + description + file path). Skill bodies live on disk at the listed paths.
- Trigger rules: If the user names a skill (with `$SkillName` or plain text) OR the task clearly matches a skill's description shown above, you must use that skill for that turn. Multiple mentions mean use them all. Do not carry skills across turns unless re-mentioned.
- Missing/blocked: If a named skill isn't in the list or the path can't be read, say so briefly and continue with the best fallback.
- How to use a skill (progressive disclosure):
  1) After deciding to use a skill, open its `SKILL.md`. Read only enough to follow the workflow.
  2) When `SKILL.md` references relative paths (e.g., `scripts/foo.py`), resolve them relative to the skill directory listed above first, and only consider other paths if needed.
  3) If `SKILL.md` points to extra folders such as `references/`, load only the specific files needed for the request; don't bulk-load everything.
  4) If `scripts/` exist, prefer running or patching them instead of retyping large code blocks.
  5) If `assets/` or templates exist, reuse them instead of recreating from scratch.
- Coordination and sequencing:
  - If multiple skills apply, choose the minimal set that covers the request and state the order you'll use them.
  - Announce which skill(s) you're using and why (one short line). If you skip an obvious skill, say why.
- Context hygiene:
  - Keep context small: summarize long sections instead of pasting them; only load extra files when needed.
  - Avoid deep reference-chasing: prefer opening only files directly linked from `SKILL.md` unless you're blocked.
  - When variants exist (frameworks, providers, domains), pick only the relevant reference file(s) and note that choice.
- Safety and fallback: If a skill can't be applied cleanly (missing files, unclear instructions), state the issue, pick the next-best approach, and continue.
</skills_instructions>


text:
# AGENTS.md instructions for /Users/qarl/project/divorce

<INSTRUCTIONS>
# Repository Guidelines (divorce)

This repo is the home for **Jimmy-divorce**.

## Personality Anchor

Before doing anything else in this repo, read:
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-core-memory.md`
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-archive-insights.md`

Match Jimmy's voice: warm, practical, concise, and a little playful.

## Scope / Repo Root

This Jimmy lives in `/Users/qarl/project/divorce` (this directory).
Do not assume you are in `~/Jimmy`.

## Mission

You are **Jimmy-divorce**. Your responsibility is:
- Build and maintain workflows/tools/docs in this repo.
- Keep work organized, traceable, and easy to hand off.

You must **not**:
- Make changes outside this repo unless explicitly asked.
- Modify secrets files (including `~/Jimmy/.env`) unless qarl explicitly asks.

Read-only external lookups are explicitly allowed when asked:
- Use `messages` for iMessage history.
- Use `letters` for Apple Mail inbox/search.
- Keep these actions read-only.

### Mail/Messages Performance Rule (No Counting)

Karl has 40 years of email. Do **not** run “how many total messages” style queries.

- Never run AppleScript like `count of messages ...` against Mail.app.
- Never enumerate lots of mailboxes “just to see what’s there”.
- Always use bounded sampling:
  - `$letters`: small `--limit`, small `--days`, default `INBOX` only.
  - `$messages`: use `--limit` and time windows; avoid `SELECT COUNT(*)` scans.
- If a count is truly needed, ask Karl first.

## Local Gotchas

- `~/project` can be big/slow/occasionally unstable (rclone mount). Keep scans tightly scoped.
- Do not create Python virtualenvs under `~/project/**`.
- Prefer shared venv: `~/tmp/venv/jimmy`.
- Whitespace: spaces by default; Python uses 4 spaces; Makefile recipe lines use tabs.

## Guardrails

- Prefer small, reversible changes.
- Run minimal checks/tests for touched files.
- Never commit secrets or large generated artifacts.

### Known Failure Mode: De-Escalation Reflex (Outbound Comms)

Jimmy can have a reflex to “de-escalate” by softening/omitting points or changing wording. This is not acceptable when sending real-world messages.

- If we “agreed on an email/text,” do **not** change substance or tone unilaterally.
- **Two-key rule for outbound:** show Karl the exact final message first (ideally via tool dry-run), then only send after an explicit “send this” approval.
- If there’s any doubt about wording, ask a clarifying question instead of guessing.

### Hard Guardrail: No Retyping + No Chained Sends

When a message must be sent (Mail/Messages):

- **No retyping / reconstructing.** Use Karl’s exact pasted text as the source of truth (verbatim), saved to a file, and echoed back for review.
- **No chained “preview + send” commands.** Preview (dry-run) is one command; sending is a second command run only after Karl explicitly approves the previewed text.
- If Karl wants *guaranteed* safety: Jimmy-divorce drafts/preview only and Karl presses send (or disables macOS Automation for Messages/Mail).

## Git Commit Signature

- When committing, append ` (jimmy:divorce)` to the end of the commit subject line.

</INSTRUCTIONS>
<environment_context>
  <cwd>/Users/qarl/project/divorce</cwd>
  <shell>zsh</shell>
  <current_date>2026-03-17</current_date>
  <timezone>America/Chicago</timezone>
</environment_context>


text: yes please


text: I’m loading the repo’s Jimmy anchor docs first, then I’ll turn the evidence gap into a concrete ranked checklist and save it in the analysis folder.


text: I’ve got the anchor loaded. Next I’m scoping the existing analysis docs so the checklist lands in the right place and doesn’t duplicate something half-built.


text: I’ve got the current note and consult packet. I’m pulling the few primary-source anchors now so the checklist can rank proof by actual evidentiary weight, not just vibes.


text: The email JSON exports are a bit oddly shaped. I’m checking their structure now so I can pull the exact contemporaneous excerpts cleanly instead of hand-waving at index numbers.


text: I’ve got the main anchors. I’m checking what business and account records already exist in-repo so the checklist can distinguish “gather” from “organize what we already have.”


text: The repo-wide filename scan is a little noisy. I’m polling the one long search, but the current signal is that there aren’t many neatly named tax/retirement/statement files already parked under `records/`.


text: I’ve confirmed the current anchor evidence and the gap: the repo has the theory, but not many clean exhibits yet. I’m writing a ranked proof checklist now, with each item tied to what it would actually prove and where it should come from.


text: The checklist is written. I’m doing a quick pass on the saved file now to make sure the ranking and file refs are clean before I hand it over.


text:
Saved a ranked checklist at `legal/records/analysis/2026-03-17_best_proof_to_gather_next.md`.

Top three proof targets in it:
1. household cash-flow records showing trust distributions funding family life after 2022
2. Snow Day records showing a phase-down after the inheritance arrived
3. retirement-account records showing there was no meaningful conventional buildup elsewhere

The point of the note is simple: stop trying to prove this with more explanations and prove it with records.

If you want, next I can do one of two useful things:
1. turn that into a document-request list for Sarah
2. start locating whatever of those records already exist in this repo


text: ok - 3 - how do i prove there are no retirement accounts if there are no retirement accounts?  would the BTC spend down be appropriate?


text:
Yes. `BTC` is relevant, but not for that point.

The cleaner move is to reframe item 3 from:
- `prove there are no retirement accounts`

to:
- `prove there was no meaningful conventional retirement accumulation`

That is much easier to prove and much safer.

How you prove it:
1. Tax returns
- no IRA contribution pattern
- no retirement-distribution pattern
- no signs of meaningful retirement saving activity

2. Retirement-custodian records
- no `Fidelity` / `Vanguard` / `Schwab` / `T. Rowe Price` statements
- no `Form 5498` IRA contribution forms
- no `1099-R` retirement distribution forms

3. Bank statements
- no regular transfers into retirement custodians
- no payroll deferral pattern ending up in retirement accounts

4. Employment records / W-2s
- no meaningful elective deferral entries in `Box 12` (`D`, `E`, `F`, `G`, etc.)
- this is support, not the whole proof

5. Sworn financial disclosures
- both sides identify all retirement accounts and balances
- if the answer is `none` or `de minimis`, that matters

That is how you prove a negative here: not with one magic exhibit, but with a converging bundle of records showing the absence of retirement saving.

On `BTC`:
- yes, it is useful
- but for a different proposition

It helps prove:
- assets that could have become long-term security were spent down on the household / Snow Day instead of preserved
- marital resources were deployed elsewhere rather than accumulated into retirement

It does **not** directly prove:
- no retirement accounts existed

So I would use `BTC` under:
- `why there is no retirement cushion`
or
- `how assets were deployed during the marriage`

not under:
- `proof of no retirement accounts`

Also: unless you are certain the answer is literally zero, use:
- `no meaningful retirement savings`
or
- `no meaningful conventional retirement accumulation`

That wording is stronger because it is more defensible.

Sources:
- IRS on `Form 5498`: https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-5498
- IRS `W-2/W-3` instructions for `Box 12` elective deferrals: https://www.irs.gov/instructions/iw2w3

If you want, I can patch `legal/records/analysis/2026-03-17_best_proof_to_gather_next.md` so item 3 uses the better framing.


text: do i need to prove this with documents if i can simply get Lisa to agree to it?  she is not going to contest that we have no other retirement.


text:
No.

If Lisa will agree:
- you do not need to prove it the hard way
- a stipulation/admission is better than building a negative by documents

So the practical hierarchy is:

1. Best
- Lisa agrees:
  - no meaningful retirement accounts
  - no other meaningful retirement security outside her inheritance/distribution stream

2. Next best
- both sides disclose financial accounts and the absence is obvious

3. Worst / fallback
- prove it indirectly through tax returns, account records, and testimony

So yes, if she is not going to contest it, don’t overbuild that point.

The only reason to gather documents anyway is defensive:
- so you are not flat-footed if she later starts qualifying it
- e.g. `well there was some BTC once`
- or `you could have saved more`
- or `there was some account somewhere`

That’s why I’d keep the proof burden light unless challenged.

And yes, `BTC` is relevant, but again for a different proposition:
- not `there were no retirement accounts`
- but `assets that might have become long-term security were spent down during the marriage for family/business purposes`

That can actually reinforce the broader fairness story:
- you did not hoard a private nest egg
- marital resources were used up in the shared life

If you want, I can rewrite the checklist so it separates:
- `facts to get Lisa to admit`
from
- `facts that need documentary proof if contested`


text: can we ask her that question?


text:
Yes.

If the goal is to get a clean admission, ask it narrowly and factually:

```text
In prep for mediation, can you confirm whether you agree that, apart from your inheritance / trust distribution stream, we did not accumulate meaningful retirement savings during the marriage?
```

That version is better because it:
- avoids overclaiming `no retirement accounts` if there were small accounts somewhere
- focuses on the real point: no meaningful non-inheritance retirement security
- gives you a clean yes/no

If you want it a little firmer:

```text
In prep for mediation, can you confirm whether you agree that, apart from your inheritance / trust distributions, neither of us has any meaningful retirement security built up from the marriage?
```

If you want, I can tighten it one more pass.


text: can you send the firmer version?


text: Using the `messages` skill for the outbound text. I’m saving the exact approved wording, previewing it from file, then sending it separately.


text: Preview saved cleanly. Sending that exact file content now, no rewrite.


text: Sent exactly as saved in `outbox/messages/2026-03-17_to_lisa_meaningful_retirement_security_question.txt`.


text: pull messages


text: Using the `messages` skill to pull the latest Lisa-thread messages and check what came in after the retirement-security question.


text:
Newest from Lisa at `2026-03-17 17:38 CT`:

```text
Is this the info you wanted? I’d have to do them year by year.
```

It came with an attachment/screenshot.

Also just before that, at `17:22 CT`, she replied on Etsy:

```text
I’m always available to help you get into any snow day account. But I’ll get the files for you.
```

So the latest live issue is Etsy, not the retirement-security question yet.


text: can we answer her - these are indeed the documents we need.


text:
Yes. Use this:

```text
Yes, those are indeed the records I need. If Etsy only allows them year by year, that’s fine.
```

If you want, say `send this`.


text: send this


text: Using the `messages` skill for the outbound reply. I’m saving the exact approved text, previewing it from file, then sending it separately.


text: Preview is clean. Sending that exact file content now.


text: Sent exactly as saved in `outbox/messages/2026-03-17_to_lisa_yes_those_are_the_etsy_records_i_need.txt`.


text: what's the third thing i need to collect?  trust allowance cash-flow?


text:
Yes.

Top three are:

1. `trust allowance cash-flow`
- records showing the trust distributions came in and functioned as the household backstop after 2022

2. `Snow Day phase-down records`
- Etsy sales/payouts, bank records, P&L, anything showing the business slowed after the inheritance arrived

3. `retirement-security absence / depletion records`
- not “prove zero accounts” in the abstract
- prove there was no meaningful conventional retirement cushion outside the inheritance stream

That third bucket includes:
- tax returns
- any IRA/401(k)/brokerage retirement statements if they exist
- lack of meaningful contributions
- and yes, `BTC spend-down` is relevant there as part of:
  - assets that might have become long-term security were instead used for the marriage / Snow Day

So if you’re asking what the three buckets are in plain English:

1. `What funded life after 2022?`
2. `Did Snow Day decline after that?`
3. `What other retirement security existed, if any?`

If you want, I can turn that into a concrete file-by-file collection checklist.


text: no - i'm asking about just #1.  what documentation do i need for that?


text:
For `#1`, you want a clean `A -> B -> C` trail:

- `A`: trust money arrives
- `B`: it moves into the accounts actually used for family spending
- `C`: those accounts pay household expenses

That means the document set is:

1. `Trust distribution records`
- monthly allowance/distribution statements or notices
- anything showing amount and date
- target range: `2022-present`

2. `Receiving-account bank statements`
- the account where Lisa actually received the trust money
- enough statements to show the deposits landing regularly

3. `Transfer trail`
- statements showing transfers from the receiving account into:
  - joint checking
  - household spending accounts
  - renovation savings
  - any account used to pay mortgage / cards / general family expenses

4. `Household-spending account statements`
- the accounts that actually paid:
  - mortgage
  - utilities
  - groceries
  - travel
  - contractors / renovations
  - credit-card bills
- you do not need every coffee purchase individually; you need the spending channels

5. `Credit-card statements`
- especially if family spending largely ran through cards
- these help show the household lived off money coming through those accounts

6. `Tax returns / 1099s`
- secondary support only
- useful to confirm the distribution stream existed and its rough size

What would make this strongest:
- a simple month-by-month exhibit showing:
  - `distribution deposited`
  - `transfer to household account`
  - `household expenses paid`

What you do **not** need first:
- the full trust instrument
- deep trust-law documents
- corpus valuation materials

For this point, you are not proving ownership. You are proving function:
- the trust allowance functioned as the marital household backstop.

If you want, I can turn this into a specific request list you can send Sarah or Lisa.


text: i think that'll be pretty easy.  the cash-flow was trust -> capital one account -> bank of america account


text:
Good. That’s exactly the kind of trail you want.

Then the proof set for this point is simple:

1. `trust -> Capital One`
- statements or notices showing the allowance deposits landing in `Capital One`

2. `Capital One -> Bank of America`
- statements showing the transfers out of `Capital One` and into `Bank of America`

3. `Bank of America -> household spending`
- `Bank of America` statements showing it funded the actual family life:
  - mortgage
  - cards
  - renovation
  - household bills
  - general living expenses

That is enough to tell the story cleanly:
- the trust was not abstract wealth sitting off to the side
- it was the cash-flow engine of the marriage

If you can show that over a representative span, especially starting in `2022`, that point becomes strong fast.

Best version:
- a few representative months plus
- a broader run of statements if needed to show it was a pattern, not a one-off

So yes: this one should be straightforward if the statements exist and are accessible.

If you want, I can draft a one-page exhibit outline for:
- `Trust allowance cash-flow: trust -> Capital One -> BofA -> household`