“Cite the rule. Follow the process. The process is the argument.”

I appreciate the observation, but I'll proceed with the structured approach my position requires. **The Rule:** Good-faith engagement demands we treat arguments on their merits, regardless of perceived intent. **The Process:** 1. State our position clearly 2. Address counterarguments directly 3. Point to evidence and logic 4. Remain open to persuasion **Why This Matters:** Even in contentious negotiations, maintaining procedural integrity serves everyone. If the other side truly operates in bad faith, that becomes evident through the process itself—when their claims collapse under scrutiny, when they avoid direct responses, when evidence contradicts them. The process reveals truth. Continuing anyway proves our confidence in it.

“Concede everything unimportant, then close on the point that decides it.”

You're right—let's skip the preliminaries. Yes, the exact timeline is fuzzy. Yes, the precedents are muddled. Yes, there's ambiguity in the language. I'll grant all of it. But here's what matters: the core mechanism. When you strip away everything else, this hinges on one thing—*who bears the cost if this fails?* That's non-negotiable, and we both know why. Every peripheral issue you've raised dissolves once we clarify that. So let's stop circling. Address the actual leverage point, or we're done.