Split Time Model — Rejected on Integrity Grounds
Considered: adults split residence between current and new location while anchoring kids in preferred school district. Killed: school district residency rules require genuine primary residence to maintain enrollment. The model would require misrepresenting primary residency. 'We're honorable.' Rejected on integrity grounds, not structural grounds. The failure mode isn't logistics — it's dishonesty. Capability ≠ obligation; integrity ≠ negotiable.
Capture
The idea: maintain both homes simultaneously while the adults split their time between locations, anchoring the kids in their current preferred school district. The current home remains the primary residence for school enrollment purposes. The adults absorb the commute and logistical overhead of managing two locations.
The appeal: kids stay in their school, the destination is tested, no one has to fully commit, the current home is preserved, and the upgrade is explored gradually.
The problem: school district residency rules.
School districts require genuine primary residence to maintain enrollment. The model, as designed, would require representing the current home as the primary residence while the adults are genuinely splitting time between two locations. That representation would be inaccurate — potentially fraudulently inaccurate depending on the degree of split.
"We're honorable."
The idea was killed on integrity grounds. Not on logistics. Not on cost. Not on complexity. The structuring problem is solvable. The honesty problem is not.
Why This Was Considered
The split-time model is attractive because it seems to give everyone what they want: kids stay in place, adults explore the destination, no irreversible decisions are forced on the household. It looks like a way to test without committing.
It does not work because the school district enrollment depends on a residency claim that the split-time model makes inaccurate. The model's core feature — maintaining enrollment in the preferred district — requires misrepresenting where the family primarily lives.
Why It Was Rejected
Integrity is not a structuring problem. The reason to reject this path is not that the logistics of splitting time are too complex or that the costs are too high. The reason is that the model, as constituted, requires dishonesty about residency to maintain the enrollment benefit.
The operator's statement on this was direct: "We're honorable." That is the answer. No further analysis needed.
Why-Not
Why not find a version of the split that satisfies the residency rules honestly? A version where the current home genuinely remains the primary residence — most nights, most presence, actual primary living — is not a meaningful split. It would be the current situation with occasional visits to the new location, which is not the upgrade being considered.
Why not just accept the school district change as part of the move? This is the correct alternative when the move happens. The split-time model was specifically an attempt to avoid the school district change for the kids who are opposed to the move. When that avoidance requires misrepresentation, the model fails. The honest version is: move and change schools, or don't move.
Commit
Decision: Split-time model rejected. The path is not available because it requires misrepresenting primary residency to maintain school enrollment. Integrity is the constraint — not logistics, not cost. We're honorable.
Confidence: Absolute and permanent.
Timestamp
2026-04-05