Could you build a sequence for the AI Regulatory Landscape Review? It would be easier to link it than individual posts.

It seems to me that you're not maintaining at least two hypotheses consistent with the data.

A hypothesis you do not seem to consider is that she did make an attempt at communicating "I made my decision and do not need more of your input", and that you did not understand this message. 

This hypothesis seems more probable to me than her straightforwardly saying a false thing, as there seems to be multiple similar misunderstandings of the sort between you.

Another misunderstanding example:

he usually did not accept my answers when I gave them but continued to argue with me, either straight up or by insisting I didn't really understand his argument or was contradicting myself somehow.

It seems to me that this quote points to another similar misunderstanding, and that it was this misunderstanding that lead to a breakdown in communication initially.

Please tell me if I'm missing something. If I'm not, you're either continuing to be inattentive to the facts, or you're directly lying.

I'd be happy to share all of our message exchanges with a third party, such as CEA Community Health, or share them publicly, if you agree to that.

You seem to be paying lip service to the "missing something" hypothesis, but framing this as an issue of someone deliberately lying is not cooperative with Holly in the world where you are in fact missing something.

Asking to share messages publicly or showing them to a third party seems to unnecessarily up the stakes. I'm not sure why you're suggesting that.

It seems to me that you are not considering the possibility that you may in fact not have said this clearly, and that this was a misunderstanding that you could have prevented by communicating another way.

I don't think the miscommunication can be blamed on any one party specifically. Both could have made different actions to reduce the risk of misunderstanding. I find it reasonable for both of them to think they had more important stuff to do than spend 10x time reducing the risk of misunderstanding and think the responsibility is on the other person.

To give my two cents on this, each time I talked with Mikhail he had really good points on lots of topics, and the conversations helped me improve my models a lot.
However, I do have a harder time understanding Mikhail than understanding the average person, and definitely feel the need to put in lots of work to get his points. In particular, his statements tend to feel a lot like attacks (like saying you're deceptive), and it's straining to decouple and not get defensive to just consider the factual point he's making.