Why Leaving Didn’t Mean Remediation Failed
Separating the outcome of the work from what my body needed next
When I finally left, the first feeling wasn’t relief.
It was guilt.
“I told myself that if remediation had really worked, I wouldn’t have needed to leave.”
That belief followed me for a long time.
This didn’t mean remediation failed — it meant I was collapsing two different questions into one.
Why We Treat Leaving as Evidence Something Went Wrong
So much effort goes into remediation that it starts to feel like a verdict.
If you stay, it worked. If you leave, it didn’t.
“I used my decision to leave as a scorecard for the work itself.”
This made leaving feel like admitting a mistake.
I had already felt this tension when I realized some homes aren’t recoverable for certain bodies, something I reflected on in Why Some Homes Aren’t Recoverable for Certain Bodies.
What Remediation Actually Accomplished
Remediation reduced exposure.
It stabilized conditions and addressed what could be addressed.
“The work changed the environment — even if it didn’t make it the right place for me.”
That distinction mattered.
I had already learned this when remediation solved the house but not my symptoms, which I explored in When Remediation Solves the House but Not My Symptoms.
Why Compatibility Matters More Than Outcome Labels
The house didn’t need to be unsafe to be incompatible.
It just needed to require more from my body than it could give.
“Leaving wasn’t about danger — it was about capacity.”
This reframing allowed me to stop blaming the work.
It also allowed me to stop blaming myself.
What Changed When I Let Both Things Be True
Remediation helped.
Leaving helped.
“Those truths didn’t cancel each other out.”
Once I stopped forcing the story to be either-or, the guilt eased.
Progress didn’t need a single explanation.