role: user

text: how can i summarize it?


role: assistant

text:
Use this:

```text
My understanding now is that Lisa agrees mediation does not have to be limited by Missouri law, and that we are free to work toward a genuinely fair and creative agreement beyond what a court would typically order. At the same time, I understand that Missouri law may still be one input in her thinking, even if it is not the controlling one.
```

Shorter version:

```text
My understanding now is that Lisa agrees mediation is not limited by Missouri law, and that we can work toward a genuinely fair agreement beyond what a court would typically order, even if Missouri law remains one consideration in the background.
```


text: she is not thinking of continuing payments... she thinks there's some way to escape that and her lawyers are pushing her that way.  but if i'm actually going to get the support i want, other measures aren't going to work.  there's no time to accumulate retirement savings in just 10 years.


text:
If you mean Lisa’s position, I’d summarize it this way:

`Lisa says mediation is not limited by Missouri law and that creative agreements are available, but she still wants to consider Missouri law, norms, needs, trust terms, and workability as inputs in deciding what is fair.`

Shorter:

`Lisa is not treating Missouri law as the ceiling, but she is still treating it as one factor in the fairness analysis.`

That is the cleanest accurate version.


text: glitch much?


text:
Yes.

I answered the wrong question. You were making a point about structure and timing, not asking for a summary of Lisa’s position again.

Your point is:

- Lisa seems to be looking for a one-time or finite structure that avoids ongoing payments.
- But if the goal is actual retirement security for you, that likely does not solve the problem.
- With only about 10 years left, there is not enough time to accumulate a retirement base from scratch through some substitute mechanism unless the amount set aside now is very large.

Clean way to say it:

```text
What worries me is that Lisa seems to be looking for a way to avoid ongoing support by substituting some finite structure. But if the goal is real retirement security, I don’t see how that works unless the amount set aside now is very large. There simply is not enough time left for me to accumulate retirement savings from near zero over the next ten years.
```

Or shorter:

```text
My concern is that other structures only work if they are large enough to solve the retirement problem up front. There is not enough time for me to build retirement savings from scratch over the next ten years.
```


text: i'm not trying to say it, i'm trying to explain to you.


text:
Understood.

Then yes, I think your read is coherent:

- Lisa sounds attracted to structures that avoid indefinite ongoing payments.
- Her lawyer and Jennifer may both be encouraging that because it feels cleaner, safer, and more bounded.
- But bounded alternatives only work if they actually replace the lost retirement base.
- And with roughly 10 years to retirement, the math is brutal. If the substitute is not large enough up front, it does not solve the problem.
- That means a “creative structure” can easily become cosmetic if it avoids ongoing payments without supplying enough capital now.

So the core issue is not:
- `ongoing payments versus some other form`

It is:
- `does the structure actually produce the retirement security it claims to produce?`

And your skepticism is justified because:
- accumulating a meaningful retirement base in 10 years from near zero is extremely hard
- especially if the replacement structure is being designed around her discomfort with ongoing support rather than around the size of the actual gap

That is the real pressure point.


text: pull recent messages please!


text: Using the `messages` skill to pull the latest Lisa-thread window from the local Messages database.


text: Waiting on the thread pull now.


text:
Newest from Lisa at `2026-03-27 18:21 CT`:

```text
When you’re in town, you might want to go over to nebula and shut the printer down in a more permanent way?
```

So the thread has shifted off mediation for the moment. Her latest practical ask is about `nebula` and shutting the printer down more permanently when you’re in town.


text: let's respond - yes, definitely on my checklist.


text:
Use this:

```text
Yes, definitely on my checklist.
```


text: can you flesh it out for me rather than reguritating my notes?  or do you think my half formed notes are perfect?


text:
Use this:

```text
Yes, definitely. That’s on my checklist for when I’m in town, and I’ll make sure it gets shut down properly.
```


text: send it.


text: Saving your exact text for preview, then I’ll send it.


text: Previewed. Sending the exact saved text now.


text: Waiting on the send confirmation now.


text: Sent exactly as saved in `outbox/messages/2026-03-27_to_lisa_nebula_printer_on_my_checklist.txt`.