People can agree on what happened while disagreeing deeply about what it required of them.

Most lasting disagreements are not about facts. Two people can give the same account of an illness, a redundancy, a family crisis, and still be far apart on what each of them was obliged to do about it. The dispute lives in the word should, which no amount of evidence settles. Arguing the timeline again is a way of avoiding the harder conversation about duty and capacity.

If you are stuck with someone, try agreeing the facts out loud and then naming the real difference. Saying what you believed was required of you, and asking what they believed was required of them, moves the conversation to where it actually is.