>>76329945>I'm gonna skimApparently you didn't even do that.
Either that, or you're deliberately changing the subject from "this failed comeback implies something about what the issue is" to "the followup was weak, just like last time" to make it seem like the January comeback tells us nothing, and then promptly listed all the things that stood out about the January comeback that clearly hint at what I mentioned - that the issue is serious, intermittent, and unpredictable. "Rerun" my ass.
And no, this was not clear before. It was definitely understandable to take her at her word that she was either busy with projects and/or taking a health break when this first started, because at that point the ghosting precedent obviously hadn't been set, let alone been a years-long problem. Nor had we seen that the long absence didn't translate into an increase in projects. That's a coping mechanism now and only now, not then.