As always, you are free to disregard anything anyone says - most folks don't need permission to do so. I tend to the view that it's better to talk-up than to talk-down, since English is such a rich language. How that 'works' depends on the interest of the reader, of course. Beginning to think that you Like being in a perpetual state of angst - no actual 'reason' needed (?)

Gosh but.. you could have skipped those difficult words in the preamble; after all, it's such an unimportant topic. And dictionaries are hard work. (I merely attempted to describe WHY anyone might be prompted to summarize this exercise.)

The message itself was, I thought - pure distilled KISS. In fact, I CAPITALIZED the message, in the event that you weren't actually familiar with common psych terms, despite so much mentioned experience.

Glossary:

Ombudsman - nah, that would be patronising. They're everywhere, nowadays.
Monologue - talking to oneself. If about oneself too? then
Recursive - referring back to itself.
PROBLEM: (occurring within Owlet mindstuff)
Internal monologue, signified by curly braces: {}
{Should I agree to meet said 'Ross' with only One Ombudsman / unarmed hubby OR Should I arrange this ONLY if there are Two: with Norman as an acceptable non-threatening Known Quantity ??? I go with Two.}

MEANS: (via normal social etiquette):
{I will find out by e-mail what said Known Quantity's *schedule* is - and arrange a meeting at that time.}

EXECUTION: actually *spoken*

"Ross, will get back to you re time we might meet."
(not even necessary to add, "..we all". "we" will do.
You NEVER have to? Ought-to telleverythingyouthink youknow. Y'know?)

RESULT:

Neither inferred, implied nor imagined insult occurs.

Lengthy, recursive self-analytical parry & thrust [fencing terms] ELIMINATED.
An appointment is (almost) made! EZ.
Burn this message; and if it's still too complex:

Never mind.