role: user

text: pull messages


role: assistant

text: Using the `messages` skill again for a bounded pull of the Lisa thread.


text:
New from Lisa at `2026-03-25 11:00 CT`:

```text
Before I talk with my lawyer again, I want to confirm what you had proposed regarding your mom’s care. At one point you mentioned a percentage-based idea, and I want to make sure I understand what you had in mind.
```

That’s the only new inbound after your `2026-03-24 14:41 CT` avoidance message.


text: what should i say?


text: I’m pulling the exact prior mom-care proposal first so the reply is grounded in what you actually said, not my memory of it.


text: The thread search only found her new question, so I’m checking the repo notes and sent drafts directly for the earlier mom-care structure.


text:
Say this:

```text
What I had in mind was not that my mom’s care should simply be folded into my support percentage. It was the opposite.

What I proposed was that her care should be modeled explicitly as a finite obligation, separate from the support percentage, rather than left vague or assumed to fit neatly inside it.

At the time, my understanding was roughly $17k/month in trust disbursements plus an additional ~$3k/month being used toward Mom, and I estimated the remaining out-of-pocket cost of her care at around $250k total. If the current numbers are different, that’s fine, but the basic structure I was proposing is the same: Mom’s care should be treated as its own explicitly budgeted piece of the model.
```

That tracks your `2026-02-24` message closely:
- not inside the `30%`
- explicit
- finite
- separately modeled

If you want, I can tighten it further.


text: i no longer want to discuss the support percentage.


text:
Then don’t mention the support percentage at all.

Use this:

```text
What I had in mind was that my mom’s care should be modeled explicitly as a finite obligation, separate from the rest of the support discussion, rather than left vague.

In other words, I was not proposing that her care just be assumed to fit inside some other number. I was proposing that it be treated as its own specifically budgeted piece of the model.

If you want to discuss the exact current numbers for her care, I’m happy to clarify those. But I don’t want to keep negotiating broader support structure by text.
```

If you want, I can make it firmer.


text: i also want to add that at this time, my mom's need has fallen to about $1000/mo


text:
Use this:

```text
What I had in mind was that my mom’s care should be modeled explicitly as a finite obligation, separate from the rest of the support discussion, rather than left vague.

In other words, I was not proposing that her care just be assumed to fit inside some other number. I was proposing that it be treated as its own specifically budgeted piece of the model.

At this point, her current need has fallen to about $1,000/month.

If you want to discuss the exact current numbers for her care, I’m happy to clarify those. But I don’t want to keep negotiating broader support structure by text.
```

If you want, say `send this`.


text: send this


text: Saving the approved text verbatim to a file and previewing it first. Then I’ll send that exact file contents in a second step.


text: The saved file matches the approved text exactly. Sending that exact file contents now.


text: Sent exactly as saved in `outbox/messages/2026-03-25_to_lisa_mom_care_modeled_explicitly_current_need_1000.txt`.


text: aside from my mom's care, Lisa's only other long term concern is supporting Juno.  but Juno is 18 and has full support for college from the trust and scholarships.


text:
Yes. That’s an important point.

If those facts hold, then Lisa’s long-term constraint picture gets much narrower:

- your mom’s care is finite and currently much lower
- Juno is already 18
- college is being covered by trust support and scholarships
- Juno is also a direct trust beneficiary

So in the long-term model, Juno should not be treated as some large indefinite offset against your security.

That means Lisa’s real enduring concerns are more like:
- her own living costs
- whatever role she thinks work plays
- and whatever long-term obligations she is voluntarily assuming beyond college

If she is implicitly modeling:
- lifetime support for Juno
or
- major ongoing education/support costs despite trust + scholarship coverage

then that needs to be stated explicitly, not smuggled in as background.

So the clean conclusion is:

- her strongest argument is probably short-term cash flow
- her long-term burden case looks weaker than she may be implying

If you want, I can help turn that into a mediation line.


text:
message from Sarah:

Karl:

I think it would be more efficient to have a phone call or a Zoom meeting to discuss your message from Monday, discuss how intake with Jennifer Piper went, and discuss how to prepare for your first mediation session.  Below is my earliest availability.  Please let me know what works best for you and whether you'd prefer a call or Zoom.

*Thursday March 26 at 2pm
*Friday March 27 at 11am
*Monday March 30 any time between 1pm - 4pm
*Tuesday March 31 any time between 9:30am - 12pm; 3pm


text:
Reply with this:

```text
Thursday March 26 at 2pm works for me. A phone call is fine unless you’d prefer Zoom.
```

If you want, I can make it slightly fuller.


text: let's prefer zoom.


text:
Use this:

```text
Thursday March 26 at 2pm works for me. I’d prefer Zoom if that works for you.
```


text: let's pick the friday meeting.


text:
Use this:

```text
Friday March 27 at 11am works for me. I’d prefer Zoom if that works for you.
```


text: pull messages from Lisa.


text: Using the `messages` skill again for a bounded Lisa-thread pull.


text:
New from Lisa at `2026-03-25 11:36 CT`:

```text
Understood about not negotiating broader support structure by text. I’m just asking for a reminder of what you had proposed regarding your mom’s care so I have it clear before I speak with my lawyer. No worries if that’s not an option any longer.

I understand you were thinking of her care as a finite obligation, which makes sense. For purposes of planning, I was trying to understand what the current monthly amount actually is, since that affects what I need to account for month to month. The numbers we discussed earlier were quite different, so I just wanted to make sure I have the current figure right. Thanks.
```

That’s the latest inbound. She appears to be narrowing the question to the current monthly figure, not reopening the broader model.


text: how should we respond.


text:
Use this:

```text
Understood. For current month-to-month planning, the number to use right now is about $1,000/month.

The earlier higher numbers reflected a different arrangement. This is the current figure as things stand now. If that changes because her care needs change, I’ll let you know.
```

That answers the narrow question and keeps the broader model closed.


text: send it.


text: Saving the approved text verbatim to a file and previewing it first. Then I’ll send that exact file contents as a separate step.


text: Sent exactly as saved in `outbox/messages/2026-03-25_to_lisa_current_month_to_month_number_1000.txt`.


text: also say that hospice is indicating mom has only about a month left.


text:
Use this as a follow-up:

```text
Also, hospice’s current indication is that Mom likely has about a month left. I wanted you to have that context as well.
```

If you want, say `send this`.


text: send this


text: Saving the approved follow-up verbatim to a file and previewing it first. Then I’ll send that exact file contents in a second step.


text: The saved follow-up matches the approved text exactly. Sending it now as the second step.


text: Sent exactly as saved in `outbox/messages/2026-03-25_to_lisa_hospice_indication_about_a_month_left.txt`.