role: user

text:
<environment_context>
  <shell>zsh</shell>
  <current_date>2026-03-19</current_date>
  <timezone>America/Chicago</timezone>
</environment_context>


text: can you remind me what Lisa said regarding fairness vs. what the law says?


role: assistant

text: Using the `messages` record in the repo to pull the exact Lisa language and dates.


text: I’m pulling both the indexed hits and the underlying message text so I can give you the exact lines, not my paraphrase from memory.


text:
Yes. The key Lisa statements were:

1. `2026-03-07 10:49 CST`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:376`
- She said:
  - `if the issue had been raised at the time, I would have wanted to be fair.`
  - `I’m also sure I would have wanted to get legal advice first so that I understood what was fair and what the implications were.`

2. `2026-03-07 11:02 CST`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:379`
- She said she was:
  - `cautious about making a written statement about fairness that could end up locking me into a position before we’ve had full legal context.`

3. `2026-03-12 21:03 CDT`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:468`
- This is the line you were remembering:
  - `I don’t think this is about me deciding what to give you or hiding behind what the law might say.`
  - `I’m trying to understand what would actually be fair to everyone involved...`
  - and she said without your full numbers she felt asked to make `a fairness decision in the abstract`

4. `2026-03-15 09:07-09:09 CDT`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:509`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:510`
- When you pressed the California question, she shifted to:
  - `I’m not trying to choose a framework that favors me`
  - `Fairness, to me, has to take into account our actual circumstances`
  - `the direct answer is that I’m not willing to assume California’s approach as the fairness benchmark`

5. `2026-03-15 09:26 CDT`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:511`
- She then softened that to:
  - she did **not** want her position summarized as refusing California’s approach
  - she wanted fairness `evaluated based on our actual circumstances`

So the short version is:

- early on, her position was: `I want to be fair, but I want legal context first`
- then she said: `I’m not hiding behind what the law might say`
- but when you tested that with California, she said she was `not willing to assume California’s approach as the fairness benchmark`
- and then partially walked that back into: `I want fairness evaluated based on actual circumstances`

If you want, I can pull the exact full paragraphs into one note file for Sarah.


text: why do we need actual numbers to decide fairness?  what we "need" is how the law looks at this, not what is fair.


text:
You don’t.

That was the core problem in her framing.

There are three separate questions:

1. `What is the benchmark?`
- legal baseline
- marital-standard baseline
- some negotiated fairness baseline

2. `What outcome follows from that benchmark?`
- long-term support
- asset target by retirement
- percentage of distributions
- etc.

3. `How do the numbers implement it?`
- budgets
- timelines
- cash-flow
- affordability

Lisa kept trying to make `#3` a prerequisite to even answering `#1`.

But that’s backwards.

- If the question is `what is fair?`, you do **not** need a full projected budget to answer it.
- If the question is `what would a court likely do?`, you need legal analysis, not your grocery estimate in Texas.
- The detailed numbers matter later, when you’re testing structure and execution.

So yes, your instinct was right:
- she was using “I need the numbers” to avoid answering the principle-level question

The cleaner formulation is:

- `fairness` is a normative question
- `law` is a baseline question
- `numbers` are an implementation question

She kept blurring them together.

That was the contradiction.


text: give me her full statements about not hiding behind the law.


text:
Here are the full Lisa statements on that point.

`records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:571`
```text
I want to be clear about where I’m coming from, because I don’t think this is about me deciding what to give you or hiding behind what the law might say. I’m trying to understand what would actually be fair to everyone involved, including me and Juno, not just what feels secure from your side.

To do that, I need to understand what you’re actually asking for in concrete terms — what you think you need, what your plan is going forward, and what level of retirement security you’re aiming for. Without that, I feel like I’m being asked to make a fairness decision in the abstract, and I’m not comfortable doing that.
```

She repeated the same statement the next day in quoted form.

`records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:613`
```text
“I want to be clear about where I’m coming from, because I don’t think this is about me deciding what to give you or hiding behind what the law might say. I’m trying to understand what would actually be fair to everyone involved, including me and Juno, not just what feels secure from your side.

To do that, I need to understand what you’re actually asking for in concrete terms — what you think you need, what your plan is going forward, and what level of retirement security you’re aiming for. Without that, I feel like I’m being asked to make a fairness decision in the abstract, and I’m not comfortable doing that.”
```

And the later California-benchmark exchange is the closest follow-on to that claim:

`records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:509`
```text
I’m not trying to choose a framework that favors me, and I’m not trying to avoid being fair. I’m trying to get to an agreement that actually works given the reality of our finances, our obligations, and where we are now. That’s why I think the right place to sort out what’s fair is in mediation, with the full numbers and assumptions on the table, rather than picking a legal standard from somewhere else.
```

`records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:510`
```text
Fairness, to me, has to take into account our actual circumstances — where we live, the trust income, Juno, Kay, the house, and what each of us can realistically afford going forward.

So the direct answer is that I’m not willing to assume California’s approach as the fairness benchmark. I am willing to work toward an agreement that’s fair in the context of our real situation, and that’s why I think mediation, with the full numbers on the table, is the right place to sort that out.
```


text: ok... let's take another tack.  Lisa doesn't want to speak in abstract numbers.  she wants to see what i need.  but for fairness, then we need to look at what she needs as well.


text:
The two full “not hiding behind the law” statements are the ones above.

The shortest synthesis is:

- She said she was **not** trying to decide what to “give” you or **hide behind what the law might say**.
- But she also said she needed:
  - your concrete ask
  - your plan going forward
  - your retirement target
  - and the actual numbers / assumptions

before she could make a fairness judgment.

So her position was not:
- `I’ll answer fairness as a principle`

It was:
- `I won’t answer fairness until I have enough concrete information to evaluate the real-world outcome`

And that is exactly where the tension was:
- she denied hiding behind law
- but she also refused to answer the fairness question at the principle level
- and later, when tested with California, she declined to use the more protective benchmark

If you want, next I can do one of two things:
1. pull the exact California-benchmark exchange in full
2. pull the exact “realistic baseline / legal advice first” statements in full


text: no.  leave CA out of it.  i want to get to her point.  she wants to see my numbers, right?


text:
Yes.

Her point, stripped down, was:

- don’t ask me to declare what is “fair” in the abstract
- show me what you actually need
- show me what retirement security means in concrete terms
- then I can evaluate whether that is fair and workable

And implicit in that is:
- fairness is not just about your need
- it also has to account for her obligations and constraints

So if you want to engage her on her own terms, the move is:

- `fine, let’s look concretely`
- but then it has to be symmetrical
- not just `what Karl needs`
- also `what Lisa needs / claims to need`

That is the right tack if your goal is to expose whether her “fairness” framework actually cashes out into something balanced or whether it just collapses into “what can I preserve for myself.”

So yes:
- her point was `show me your numbers`
- and your answer can be `fine, but then we need both sides’ numbers, not just mine`

That is coherent.


text: will she come with numbers?


text:
Probably some numbers, yes. But not necessarily a clean full model.

My read:

- She will likely come with `constraint numbers`
  - trust income
  - house
  - Juno
  - Kay
  - debts / savings
  - what she says is left over

- She may not come with a `fully worked alternative proposal`
  - i.e. not necessarily a coherent long-term structure that solves your retirement problem

That fits her pattern so far:
- she kept saying she was `trying to run the numbers`
- she focused on `what is actually possible`
- she repeatedly referenced her obligations and monthly limits
- but she has avoided committing to a full benchmark or clear counter-structure

So my expectation is:
- yes, she will come with numbers
- but mainly as a feasibility defense, not as a complete fairness model

That means the key question in mediation is:
- `What numbers are you bringing, and what conclusion do you say they support?`

If you want, I can help you prepare for the two likely versions:
1. she brings only “here’s why 30% is too much”
2. she brings an actual alternative structure


text: i mean, logically, if she wants to know what i "need" in retirement, don't we also look at what she "needs" as well?


text:
Yes. Logically, absolutely.

If her fairness framework is:
- `let’s look at concrete needs, not abstractions`

then it has to apply to both of you.

Otherwise it is not a fairness framework. It is just:
- `justify your ask to me`

So the logic is:

1. What do you need for a fair retirement outcome?
2. What does she need for a fair retirement outcome?
3. What resources exist?
4. How should those resources be allocated fairly between you?

If she only asks:
- `what do you need?`

but never asks:
- `what do I need, and what is actually fair between us?`

then her framework is incomplete and self-serving.

So yes, your point is right:
- once she insists on concrete needs rather than principles,
- both sides’ needs become relevant,
- not just yours.

That is the symmetry problem in her position.

A clean way to say it is:

- `If fairness is going to be evaluated concretely rather than abstractly, then it can’t be based only on what I need. It also has to account for what you need, and then compare the two against the resources available.`

That is the intellectually coherent version of her own premise.