role: user

text: let's try this for the third question: does Lisa agree that san fransico is the best place for me to rebuild my life?


role: assistant

text:
That’s usable, but it’s weaker than the first two unless you tighten the purpose.

As written, it invites:
- `that’s subjective`
- `why San Francisco?`
- `best according to whom?`

Better versions:

- `Do we agree that any fair plan has to be based on a realistic place for me to rebuild my life, and that San Francisco is the most realistic location for that?`
- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to re-establish stability, community, and possible work connections?`
- `Do we agree that my future needs should be evaluated based on the place where I can most realistically rebuild, rather than on an artificially minimized location assumption?`

The strongest version is probably the second one, because it keeps the binary structure:

- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to re-establish stability, community, and possible work connections?`

That makes the issue `realistic rebuilding`, not `favorite city`.

If you want, I’ll patch that into the third slot.


text: i didn't say "favorite city" you did.


text:
Correct. That was my gloss, and it was sloppy.

Your version is about `best place to rebuild your life`, not preference. The problem with `best` is just that it gives them room to wriggle on vagueness.

A tighter version that keeps your meaning is:

- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the best place for me to rebuild my life?`

Or, if you want it slightly more defensible without changing the substance:

- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to rebuild my life?`

If you want to keep your exact phrasing, that’s fine too. It’s your mediation, not a grammar contest.


text: your tighter version - can you repeat it next to my original phrasing?


text:
Your original:
- `Does Lisa agree that San Francisco is the best place for me to rebuild my life?`

Tighter version:
- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the best place for me to rebuild my life?`

Slightly more defensible variant:
- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to rebuild my life?`


text: how are these different in any meaningful way?


text:
They differ in where the burden sits.

- `Does Lisa agree ... ?`
  - asks her to affirmatively endorse your proposition
  - easier for her to dodge with `I’m not sure`, `I’d need more info`, `I don’t know that I can agree`

- `Do you contest ... ?`
  - asks whether she is actually disputing it
  - puts pressure on her to either `say yes, I dispute it` or back off
  - better for mediation because it forces a position instead of inviting hesitation

So the difference is not semantics. It’s tactical:
- `agree` invites noncommitment
- `contest` forces a clearer lane

And `best` vs `most realistic` differs too:
- `best` sounds broader and more value-laden
- `most realistic` sounds more factual and defensible

That’s the real distinction.


text: should all of my questions be formed as "do you contest" then???


text:
No.

Use `do you contest` only when:
- you are putting forward a specific factual framing,
- and you want to force the other side to either dispute it or let it stand.

That fits questions like:
- `Do you contest that our financial decisions were made with the shared expectation... ?`
- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to rebuild my life?`

But it is not right for everything.

Use `do we agree` when:
- the point is a shared process or normative frame,
- not a disputed historical fact.

That fits:
- `Do we agree mediation should begin from what is fair...?`

Use `can you confirm` when:
- the point is a concrete factual baseline that should be easy to acknowledge.

That fits:
- `Can you confirm whether you agree that, apart from the inheritance / trust distributions, neither of us has meaningful retirement security...?`

So:
- `Do we agree` = process / framing
- `Do you contest` = disputed fact / premise
- `Can you confirm` = factual baseline

That mix is better than hammering everything into one form.


text: so how should i ask the three questions?


text:
I’d ask them like this:

- `Do we agree the mediation should begin from what is fair, not only from what the law might technically allow?`
- `Do you contest the framing that our financial decisions during the marriage, including winding down Snow Day in 2022, were made with the shared expectation that Lisa’s inheritance would provide long-term security for both of us?`
- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to rebuild my life?`

That gives you:
- `Do we agree` for the process frame,
- `Do you contest` for the disputed factual premises.

If you want, I can patch those exact three into the cheat sheet.


text: why does question 2 have supporting evidence in it


text:
Because I overloaded it.

`including winding down Snow Day in 2022` is evidence, not the core question. Putting it inside the question makes it longer, more argumentative, and easier to resist.

Cleaner version:

- `Do you contest the framing that our financial decisions during the marriage were made with the shared expectation that Lisa’s inheritance would provide long-term security for both of us?`

Then if she contests it, you support it with:
- Snow Day wind-down after 2022,
- no separate retirement build,
- BTC depletion,
- trust cash flow entering the marital system.

That is the better structure:
- `short premise first`
- `evidence second`

If you want, I’ll update the cheat sheet to use the cleaner version.


text: yes please.


text:
Done.

`records/analysis/2026-03-22_mediation_cheat_sheet.md:10` now uses the shorter version:
- premise in the question,
- evidence stays outside it.


text: i want to make it less legalistic.  can it be more like: do you contest that we planned to use your inheritance for retirement security?


text:
Yes. That’s better for live mediation.

Use:

- `Do you contest that we planned to use your inheritance for retirement security?`

Why it’s better:
- shorter
- plain English
- sounds like a real human question, not a brief

The tradeoff is that it’s slightly less precise than `financial decisions during the marriage were made with the shared expectation...`, but for spoken use I think it’s worth it.

If you want a middle version:

- `Do you contest that we planned to rely on your inheritance for our retirement security?`

That may be the strongest spoken form. `rely on` is a little sharper than `use`.

My pick:
- `Do you contest that we planned to rely on your inheritance for our retirement security?`

If you want, I’ll patch that into the cheat sheet.


text: planned to rely.  no.  again, too legalistic.  stick with my version.


text:
Use your version then:

- `Do you contest that we planned to use your inheritance for retirement security?`

That’s clean, plain, and direct. If you want, I’ll patch it in exactly like that.


text: yes.


text:
Done.

`records/analysis/2026-03-22_mediation_cheat_sheet.md:10` now uses your exact wording.


text: what are the other two questions>


text:
Current three are:

- `Do we agree the mediation should begin from what is fair, not only from what the law might technically allow?`
- `Do you contest that we planned to use your inheritance for retirement security?`
- third slot is still open / `TBD`

From your recent direction, the likely third candidate is:

- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to rebuild my life?`

That one is not patched in yet.


text: patch it in.


text:
Patched.

`records/analysis/2026-03-22_mediation_cheat_sheet.md:13` now has:

- `Do we agree the mediation should begin from what is fair, not only from what the law might technically allow?`
- `Do you contest that we planned to use your inheritance for retirement security?`
- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to rebuild my life?`


text: what about "do we agree that we should strive for genuine fairness, not merely what protection MO law provides?


text:
That’s stronger than the current first question.

Current version:
- `Do we agree the mediation should begin from what is fair, not only from what the law might technically allow?`

Your new version:
- `Do we agree that we should strive for genuine fairness, not merely what protection MO law provides?`

Differences:
- `strive for genuine fairness` is more forceful and moral
- `what protection MO law provides` is clearer and more concrete than `what the law might technically allow`
- it also makes Missouri explicit, which is useful here

The only risk is tone: it’s a little more loaded and slightly more adversarial. But if that’s the frame you want, it’s a better statement of your position.

I think it works.

If you want a tiny tightening:
- `Do we agree that we should strive for genuine fairness, not merely the protection Missouri law might provide?`

But your version is fine. If you want, I’ll patch it in exactly as written.


text: let's go with my version.  it sound more like spoken language.


text:
Done.

The opening three in `records/analysis/2026-03-22_mediation_cheat_sheet.md:7` are now:

- `Do we agree that we should strive for genuine fairness, not merely what protection MO law provides?`
- `Do you contest that we planned to use your inheritance for retirement security?`
- `Do you contest that San Francisco is the most realistic place for me to rebuild my life?`