role: user

text: ok - can you show me the question 3 doc?


role: assistant

text:
```text
**Question 3 — Likely Live Responses and Short Replies**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-24 | Status: Working mediation note

---

**Question**

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

---

**Purpose**

This question is meant to establish the real-world location assumption before the discussion turns into budgeting or earning-capacity arguments.

If the location premise is left vague, the numbers discussion can be distorted very quickly by quietly substituting a cheaper or less realistic place.

The point is not that San Francisco is morally superior or that no other place could exist in theory. The point is that support and rebuilding assumptions have to be tied to a realistic actual location.

---

**1. If she says: "I don’t know what you mean by realistic."**

**What she means**

She is trying to make the premise sound subjective or fuzzy.

**Short reply**

> I mean the place where I have the best real chance of re-establishing stability, community, and any remaining professional footing, rather than an abstract lower-cost alternative.

**If needed**

> My concern is realism, not lifestyle inflation.

---

**2. If she says: "San Francisco is your preference, not a fairness issue."**

**What she means**

She is trying to downgrade the location premise into personal taste.

**Short reply**

> It becomes a fairness issue once support numbers or work assumptions are tied to place. If the location assumption changes, the whole numbers discussion changes with it.

**If needed**

> That is why I think the premise should be surfaced before the budgeting conversation hardens.

---

**3. If she says: "You could rebuild somewhere cheaper."**

**What she means**

She is trying to convert the discussion into least-cost relocation logic.

**Short reply**

> In theory, maybe. But I am asking about the most realistic place to rebuild my life, not the cheapest place to exist on paper.

**If needed**

> I think those are different questions.

---

**4. If she says: "We do not need to decide that yet."**

**What she means**

She is trying to postpone the premise so the numbers can be discussed without fixing a location.

**Short reply**

> I think we do need to decide it, or at least identify the working assumption, because the numbers depend on it.

**If needed**

> Otherwise the budgeting conversation starts floating free of real conditions.

---

**5. If she says: "Why San Francisco specifically?"**

**What she means**

She wants you to justify the location with concrete facts.

**Short reply**

> Because that is where my adult life began, where I still have meaningful history and community, and where the strongest remaining professional connections for my background still exist.

**If needed**

> It is not a random preference. It is the place that still has the most realistic rebuilding logic for me.

---

**6. If she says: "That is too expensive."**

**What she means**

She is trying to turn expense itself into the answer.

**Short reply**

> Expense matters, but it is not the only variable. A lower-cost place is not automatically more realistic if it strips away the actual conditions that make rebuilding possible.

**If needed**

> I do not think fairness should be based on an artificial relocation premise.

---

**7. If she says: "Your work can be remote."**

**What she means**

She is trying to weaken the connection between geography and rebuilding.

**Short reply**

> Some work may be remote in theory, but community, history, industry proximity, and real-world professional connection still matter. I do not think this can be reduced to internet access.

**If needed**

> I am talking about rebuilding a life, not just finding a Wi-Fi signal.

---

**8. If she says: "I’m not contesting it, but I’m not agreeing to a San Francisco budget."**

**What she means**

She is trying to separate the location premise from its practical consequences.

**Short reply**

> I understand the distinction, but if San Francisco is the realistic location, then the budget discussion has to start from that reality.

**If needed**

> Otherwise the agreement is only nominal.

---

**9. If she says: "This sounds loaded."**

**What she means**

She thinks the location question smuggles in a high-cost outcome.

**Short reply**

> I am asking it because I want the budgeting discussion to be tied to a realistic factual premise, not because I am trying to preload the result.

**If needed**

> I think it is better to surface the premise directly than to bury it inside later numbers.

---

**Best Pressure Question**

If Lisa tries to dodge the question without clearly contesting the premise, the strongest follow-up is:

> If not San Francisco, then what specific location do you think is more realistic, and why?

That forces her to supply a real alternative rather than just resisting yours.

---

**Anchor Rule**

Do not let this question drift into a debate about ideal cities or personal taste.

Keep it tied to:

- realism,
- support modeling,
- community,
- professional footing,
- and the factual premises underlying later numbers.

---

*This note is a working mediation prep sheet. It is not legal advice.*
```


text: ok - these are good.  they respond to what might be live questions.  do we also have documents that support the answers we want from these questions?


text:
Yes.

You have two kinds of support docs:
- `attack/response` docs
- `best evidence` docs

For the first two questions, those are already built.

**Question 1 — Fairness**
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_fairness_first_attack_response.md:1`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_best_evidence_for_fairness_first.md:1`
- plus the core framing note: `records/analysis/2026-03-22_fairness_not_just_missouri_law.md:1`

**Question 2 — Inheritance for retirement**
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_inheritance_as_retirement_attack_response.md:1`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_best_evidence_for_inheritance_as_retirement.md:1`
- plus the main factual support docs:
  - `records/analysis/2026-03-17_trust_allowance_as_retirement_income_position.md:1`
  - `records/analysis/2026-03-17_sales_trend_wind_down_note.md:1`
  - `records/analysis/2026-03-22_reasons_inheritance_intended_for_retirement.md:1`

**Question 3 — San Francisco**
- I do **not** think we made a dedicated `best evidence for question 3` note yet.
- The evidence is scattered, mostly in:
  - `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:1`
  - `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-23_strategy_note_three_opening_questions.md:82`

So:
- `yes` for questions 1 and 2
- `not yet in a clean standalone form` for question 3

If you want, I can make `best_evidence_for_question3_sf_rebuild.md` now.


text: yes please.


text:
Done.

New file:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-25_best_evidence_for_question3_sf_rebuild.md:1`

It pulls question 3 into the same shape as the other two:
- main premise,
- supporting evidence,
- why each point matters,
- best short form,
- best follow-up if contested.

So now you have a cleaner set for all three:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_best_evidence_for_fairness_first.md:1`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-22_best_evidence_for_inheritance_as_retirement.md:1`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-25_best_evidence_for_question3_sf_rebuild.md:1`

If you want, I can show the new question 3 evidence note.


text: please.


text:
```text
**Best Evidence For Question 3 — San Francisco As The Realistic Rebuild Location**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-25 | Status: Working mediation evidence note

---

**Question**

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

---

**Purpose**

This note identifies the strongest current evidence supporting the San Francisco premise. The goal is not to prove that San Francisco is the only imaginable place Karl could live. The goal is to show that it is the most realistic place to evaluate rebuilding, support needs, and any future earning assumptions.

---

**1. San Francisco is not arbitrary — it is where Karl and Lisa's adult life together began**

The cleanest personal-history point is that San Francisco is where Karl and Lisa met and married, and where Karl's adult life began.

Supporting file:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:10`

Why it matters:
- this makes San Francisco a real life anchor, not a tactical invention;
- it ties the location to history, community, and continuity.

---

**2. San Francisco is tied to Karl's remaining professional footing**

The strongest practical point is that Karl's professional network in computer graphics, visual effects, and AI is concentrated in San Francisco, and the city remains one of the strongest hubs for any realistic re-entry attempt.

Supporting file:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:11`

Why it matters:
- question 3 is not about taste;
- it is about where rebuilding has the best factual basis.

---

**3. The GDC fact makes the professional relevance concrete**

The Game Developers Conference is held annually in San Francisco. For someone with Karl's background in computer graphics and adjacent fields, that is a concrete indicator that San Francisco remains professionally relevant.

Supporting file:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:169`

Why it matters:
- it moves the argument from general atmosphere to a specific industry fact;
- it shows why San Francisco still matters as a place of connection and opportunity.

---

**4. Lisa herself has already engaged with San Francisco as a real premise**

Lisa has not treated San Francisco as a random or frivolous idea. In the message record, she explicitly acknowledged the practical difficulty of finding housing there:

> "Well, it’s San Francisco. Finding a place is going to be a challenge"

Supporting file:
- `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:142`

Why it matters:
- this is useful because it shows Lisa recognized San Francisco as the actual location under discussion rather than dismissing it outright as fantasy;
- it supports the point that the location premise was already live between the parties.

---

**5. The budget logic itself depends on a real location assumption**

The San Francisco budget note was built around the practical point that asking Karl to rebuild somewhere cheaper would mean asking him to give up both his strongest remaining professional prospects and his home community.

Supporting files:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:10`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:11`

Why it matters:
- this ties question 3 directly to later numbers;
- it explains why location has to be settled before budgeting can be honest.

---

**Best Short Form**

The cleanest way to state the point is:

> San Francisco is not a lifestyle preference. It is the most realistic place for me to re-establish stability, community, and any remaining professional footing. If the financial discussion is going to be grounded in reality, it has to start from a realistic location assumption.

---

**Best Follow-Up If Contested**

If Lisa contests the San Francisco premise, the strongest follow-up is:

> If not San Francisco, then what specific location do you think is more realistic, and why?

That forces a concrete alternative instead of a vague least-cost objection.

---

*This note is a working mediation evidence sheet. It is not legal advice.*
```


text: additional facts - our child Juno was born in the bay area.  most of my social and professional contacts are there.  san francisco was the location of my last true non-self-employed employment (linden lab)


text:
Added those facts in the right places.

Updated:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:10`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.tex:33`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-25_best_evidence_for_question3_sf_rebuild.md:20`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-24_question3_live_responses.md:39`
- `records/lawyers/wittrock/2026-03-23_strategy_note_three_opening_questions.md:97`

New facts now captured:
- Juno was born in the Bay Area
- most of your social and professional contacts are there
- your last true non-self-employed job was at `Linden Lab` in San Francisco

Rebuilt:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.pdf:1`

`tectonic` compiled cleanly with only minor existing overfull-box warnings. If you want, I can show the updated question 3 evidence note or the revised SF intro paragraph.


text: can you show me the text?


text:
```text
**Best Evidence For Question 3 — San Francisco As The Realistic Rebuild Location**
Karl Stiefvater | Date: 2026-03-25 | Status: Working mediation evidence note

---

**Question**

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

---

**Purpose**

This note identifies the strongest current evidence supporting the San Francisco premise. The goal is not to prove that San Francisco is the only imaginable place Karl could live. The goal is to show that it is the most realistic place to evaluate rebuilding, support needs, and any future earning assumptions.

---

**1. San Francisco is not arbitrary — it is where Karl and Lisa's adult life together began**

The cleanest personal-history point is that San Francisco is where Karl and Lisa met and married, where Juno was born in the Bay Area, and where Karl's adult life began.

Supporting file:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:10`

Why it matters:
- this makes San Francisco a real life anchor, not a tactical invention;
- it ties the location to history, community, and continuity.

---

**2. San Francisco is tied to Karl's remaining personal and professional footing**

The strongest practical point is that most of Karl's social and professional contacts are in the Bay Area, his professional network in computer graphics, visual effects, and AI is concentrated there, and San Francisco was also the location of his last true non-self-employed position at Linden Lab.

Supporting file:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:11`

Why it matters:
- question 3 is not about taste;
- it is about where rebuilding has the best factual basis;
- it ties San Francisco to both community and concrete professional history.

---

**3. The GDC fact makes the professional relevance concrete**

The Game Developers Conference is held annually in San Francisco. For someone with Karl's background in computer graphics and adjacent fields, that is a concrete indicator that San Francisco remains professionally relevant.

Supporting file:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:169`

Why it matters:
- it moves the argument from general atmosphere to a specific industry fact;
- it shows why San Francisco still matters as a place of connection and opportunity.

---

**4. Lisa herself has already engaged with San Francisco as a real premise**

Lisa has not treated San Francisco as a random or frivolous idea. In the message record, she explicitly acknowledged the practical difficulty of finding housing there:

> "Well, it’s San Francisco. Finding a place is going to be a challenge"

Supporting file:
- `../records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:142`

Why it matters:
- this is useful because it shows Lisa recognized San Francisco as the actual location under discussion rather than dismissing it outright as fantasy;
- it supports the point that the location premise was already live between the parties.

---

**5. The budget logic itself depends on a real location assumption**

The San Francisco budget note was built around the practical point that asking Karl to rebuild somewhere cheaper would mean asking him to give up both his strongest remaining professional prospects and his home community.

Supporting files:
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:10`
- `records/analysis/2026-03-13_retirement_budget_justification_sf.md:11`

Why it matters:
- this ties question 3 directly to later numbers;
- it explains why location has to be settled before budgeting can be honest.

---

**Best Short Form**

The cleanest way to state the point is:

> San Francisco is not a lifestyle preference. It is the most realistic place for me to re-establish stability, community, and any remaining professional footing. If the financial discussion is going to be grounded in reality, it has to start from a realistic location assumption.

---

**Best Follow-Up If Contested**

If Lisa contests the San Francisco premise, the strongest follow-up is:

> If not San Francisco, then what specific location do you think is more realistic, and why?

That forces a concrete alternative instead of a vague least-cost objection.

---

*This note is a working mediation evidence sheet. It is not legal advice.*
```