role: assistant

text:
Probably by talking to her lawyer and by making a guess about how the mediation is likely to be framed.

In practice, she’ll decide what to prepare based on:

1. `her lawyer’s theory of the case`
- if the lawyer says:
  - `this is basically a Missouri maintenance case`
- then she prepares like that

2. `what you’ve emphasized beforehand`
- if you come in clearly saying:
  - `my ask is genuine fairness, not just the Missouri floor`
- then she has more reason to anticipate a broader inquiry

3. `the mediator’s style`
- some mediators naturally work from:
  - legal reality first
- others are more open to:
  - broad fairness and custom structure

4. `her own anxiety`
- if she is mainly worried about short-term cash flow,
- she may prepare numbers that defend against immediate burden rather than a full long-term fairness model

So she’ll determine it imperfectly.
She won’t know for sure.
She’ll prepare for the frame she expects to dominate.

Which means:
- if you want the room to move toward bilateral fairness,
- you should say that explicitly at the outset
- otherwise the default may be the narrower legal frame

That is why your opening matters so much. It tells everyone which game you are trying to play.


role: user

text: ok - Lisa wants my retirement numbers.  what exact numbers does she want?


text:
Exact things she asked for:

1. `retirement age`
- when you expect to retire
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:525`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:531`

2. `target retirement income`
- what level of annual income in retirement you see as the benchmark
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:549`

3. `target retirement assets`
- what level of assets would feel secure to you at `67`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:525`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:531`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:537`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:549`

4. `time horizon`
- how many years you are talking about to get there
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:537`

5. `your assumptions behind the model`
- what assumptions you are using to get to the requested structure
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:595`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:623`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:629`

6. `actual calculations behind 30% and life insurance`
- not just the conclusion, but the math behind those figures
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:593`

7. `cost breakdown / budget`
- at least at some point, she also wanted a breakdown of expected expenses
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:603`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last14d.txt:607`

So the core retirement numbers she wanted were:

- `retire at what age?`
- `with what annual income?`
- `or with what asset base?`
- `over what time horizon?`
- `using what assumptions?`

That is the clean answer.


text: what should i say to these questions?


text: I’m checking your existing retirement-position docs so the answer matches the numbers you’ve already developed, not a fresh improvisation.


text:
Say it in this order.

**Short answer**
- `Retirement age:` `67`
- `Retirement income benchmark:` about `$120,000/year` in today’s dollars
- `If support ends at 67:` the corresponding retirement-security target is about `$2.5 million` in today’s dollars
- `Why:` that is roughly `50%` of the retirement income stream we expected to share during the marriage
- `Structure:` I’m open to different structures that get there

**If they ask for the exact language**
```text
I want to retire at 67. In today’s dollars, the retirement-income benchmark I’m using is about $120,000 per year. If the structure ends at 67 rather than continuing beyond that, then the corresponding retirement-security target is about $2.5 million in today’s dollars.

I’m not saying it has to take the form of a single lump-sum transfer. I’m saying the economic result needs to leave me with retirement security in that neighborhood. I’m open to different structures that can accomplish that.
```

**If they ask where `$120,000` comes from**
```text
That number comes from the retirement income stream we were implicitly planning around during the marriage. Lisa’s allowance stream has been in roughly the $17,000 to $19,500 per month range. Fifty percent of the upper end of that is about $117,000 per year, which I round to $120,000.
```

**If they ask for the fairness anchor**
```text
If we’re talking about pure fairness, I think the equitable starting point is 50% of the retirement income we expected to share. Before mediation, I floated 30% as a discounted attempt to resolve this informally, but that was not my full fairness position.
```

**If they ask about budget / need**
```text
My San Francisco bottom-up budget is higher than that, which is part of why I view $120,000 as a conservative retirement benchmark rather than an aggressive one.
```

Use the last line only if they press on budget. Don’t lead with it.

If you want, I can turn this into a one-page `numbers sheet` for the mediation table.


text: no.  she has explicitly rejected 50% of what i would have had.  she's asking me to estimate my actual costs.


text:
Then answer her in the `need` frame, not the `50%` frame.

Clean version:

- `Retirement age:` `67`
- `Actual annual need in today’s dollars:` about `$155,740/year`
- `Monthly equivalent:` about `$12,978/month`
- `Source:` your bottom-up San Francisco standard-of-living budget in `legal/records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md`
- `What $120,000 was:` a discounted settlement benchmark, not your full actual-cost number

So the way to say it is:

```text
If you want my actual costs rather than the fairness anchor, then my honest bottom-up standard-of-living number is about $155,740 per year in today’s dollars, or about $12,978 per month. That is the figure produced by the detailed San Francisco budget I prepared. The earlier $120,000 number was a discounted benchmark for settlement discussion, not my full actual-cost number.
```

If they push on retirement specifically:

```text
I want to retire at 67. If you’re asking what level of annual income would allow me to maintain a reasonable standard of living in retirement, my actual-cost number is about $155,740 per year in today’s dollars. The $120,000 figure was already a concession below that.
```

That is the clean distinction:

1. `Fairness anchor:` `50%`
2. `Discounted settlement benchmark:` `$120,000/year`
3. `Actual bottom-up cost:` `$155,740/year`

If you want, I can turn that into a short spoken answer that won’t sound rehearsed.


text: why on earth do you bring up the $120,000 number and then argue why it's irrelevent?  isn't the cleaner argument to never raise it at all?


text:
Yes. If she is asking for your actual costs, the cleaner move is not to raise `$120,000` at all.

The only reason to mention it would be if:
- she brings it up first
- or someone asks you to reconcile prior numbers

Otherwise, it is cleaner to answer her question directly with the actual-cost figure and stop there.

So the better answer is just:

```text
If you’re asking for my actual costs, my honest bottom-up standard-of-living number is about $155,740 per year in today’s dollars, or about $12,978 per month. That is the figure produced by the detailed San Francisco budget I prepared.
```

And if they ask:
- `what assumptions are behind that?`
then walk through the categories.

So yes:
- your instinct is right
- bringing up `$120,000` when not asked just muddies the answer

The direct answer to her question is the `$155,740` figure.


text:
can my opening be something like:

before we get deeper in the muck, i want to get clarity on two questions:

1. can we seek genuine fairness and not just what MO law affords, and

2. does Lisa agree that we planned our finances around the assumption that Lisa's inheritance would provide our retirement.


text:
Yes. That’s a strong opening.

I’d clean it up slightly:

```text
Before we get deeper into the details, I want to get clarity on two threshold questions.

First, can we approach this mediation from the standpoint of genuine fairness, rather than limiting ourselves to what Missouri law might technically provide?

Second, does Lisa agree that we made our financial decisions during the marriage on the shared assumption that her inheritance would provide our long-term retirement security?
```

Why this version is better:
- `before we get deeper into the details` is cleaner than `deeper in the muck`
- `threshold questions` gives it structure
- `long-term retirement security` is tighter than just `our retirement`

If you want, I can give you:
1. a sharper version
2. a warmer version
3. a version that sounds more natural spoken aloud


text: wow!  you used a thesaurus.  can you do better than that?


text:
Yes. That was cosmetic, not better.

Plain version:

```text
Before we get lost in numbers, I want answers to two basic questions.

First: are we here to work out what is genuinely fair, or just what Missouri law might provide?

Second: does Lisa agree that we made our financial decisions during the marriage on the understanding that her inheritance would provide our retirement?
```

Slightly harder version:

```text
Before we get lost in the numbers, I want to be clear on two things.

First, are we trying to reach a genuinely fair outcome here, or are we just negotiating around the Missouri legal floor?

Second, does Lisa agree that we made our financial decisions during the marriage on the understanding that her inheritance would provide our retirement?
```

The first one is cleaner.


text: no, that's shitty too.  i want to preface both questions with the idea that i believe Lisa agrees with me but i want to set the record straight before we get started.


text:
Yes. Then say that directly:

```text
I think Lisa and I may actually agree on both of these points, but I want to get them clearly on the record before we get into the details.

First, I believe we both want this mediation to focus on what is genuinely fair, not just on what Missouri law might technically provide.

Second, I believe we made our financial decisions during the marriage on the understanding that Lisa’s inheritance would provide our retirement. I want to know whether Lisa agrees with that.
```

That is cleaner because:
- it starts from possible agreement
- it explains why you are asking
- it sets the record before the numbers fight starts

If you want, I can make it more natural spoken aloud.


text: should i read it or should i memorize it and pretend i'm making it up as i go?


text:
Don’t pretend.

Best options:

1. `Have a written note and speak from it`
- best choice
- natural, but accurate

2. `Read short parts directly if needed`
- totally fine for threshold questions
- especially if wording matters

Worst option:
- `memorize it and act spontaneous`
- that usually makes people sound stiffer, not looser
- and increases the chance you leave out the important part

So the practical move is:
- write the two questions down
- look at the page
- say them plainly
- no performance layer

Something like:
- `I wrote this down because I want to be precise about it.`

That actually helps you, not hurts you.


text:
i want to make it simpler:

for mediation - i have two questions that i feel get to the heart of my thinking.

1. can we pursue genuine fairness, not just what MO law provides?

2. does Lisa agree that we planned to share her inheritance for our retirement?


text:
That’s close.

I’d tighten the second question so it doesn’t sound like a claim to principal:

```text
For mediation, I have two questions that I think get to the heart of my position.

1. Can we pursue genuine fairness, not just what Missouri law provides?

2. Does Lisa agree that we planned our financial lives around the expectation that her inheritance would provide our retirement?
```

`planned to share her inheritance` is weaker because she can dodge into `I never said you’d share the principal.`

`planned our financial lives around the expectation...` is the stronger phrasing.


text: hmmm... #2 still sounds too legalistic.


text:
Then make it plainer:

```text
For mediation, I have two questions that get to the heart of how I’m thinking about this.

1. Can we pursue genuine fairness, not just what Missouri law provides?

2. Does Lisa agree that, during the marriage, we were both assuming her inheritance would take care of us in retirement?
```

That second question is much more human. It says the same thing without sounding like a brief.

If you want, an even blunter version is:

```text
2. Does Lisa agree that, during the marriage, we were both treating her inheritance as our retirement plan?
```


text: does Lisa agree that we planned to use her inheritance for our retirement.


text:
Yes. That works.

Put together:

```text
For mediation, I have two questions that get to the heart of how I’m thinking about this.

1. Can we pursue genuine fairness, not just what Missouri law provides?

2. Does Lisa agree that we planned to use her inheritance for our retirement?
```

That is plain and strong.