Three terms from the research fit what we counted. Each comes with what would change our reading.
This names the gap between what someone says they will do and what they actually do — judging by actions taken, not words offered.
Vikram proposed 7 plans across the chat (Lonavala, the weekend after, 'next month', Friday, rain-check tomorrow, tomorrow-for-sure, Saturday dinner). 0 of 7 were kept.
A single plan actually carried out — a place shown up to, a booking confirmed — would change this reading. None appears in the 45 messages.
This describes a pattern where affection arrives unpredictably after a gap, which research on reinforcement schedules shows can strengthen attention to the relationship rather than weaken it.
5 silences over 72 hours (4, 9, 10, 4, and 5 days), each one ending with a warm or affectionate opener — 'I miss your face,' 'I've been thinking about you a lot,' 'you deserve better than that' — rather than an explanation offered first.
A silence ending in a plain, unprompted account of what happened during the gap (not paired with new affection or a new plan) would read differently. That pairing does not appear here.
If you want to read more: Schedules of Reinforcement (C. B. Ferster and B. F. Skinner, 1957); Attached (Amir Levine and Rachel Heller, 2010).
This names a specific way of responding to a direct question or concern — turning it aside or shutting it down rather than engaging with it.
On 3 Aug at 23:06 you asked directly what the relationship was. His two replies — 'why do we need to label it... isn't that enough for now' and 'don't overthink it' — did not answer the question; of 1 status question asked, 0 were answered directly.
A direct answer, even an uncomfortable one, would change this reading. This happened once in the chat, so the pattern rests on a single exchange.
If you want to read more: The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work (John Gottman and Nan Silver, 1999).