Did I claim deceit? "Nothing" is inaccurate. (I understand that labeling an inaccuracy a 'lie' is a political statement.)

Yes. It is inaccurate. It is inaccurate in the same way sarcasm in inaccurate. Calling what Alice says a lie is about as inaccurate as calling sarcasm a lie. Maybe we should taboo "lie". We agree it is literally false and agree that it was not deceit. That leaves me not seeing what it was Alice did wrong (beside being suboptimal in her communication skills). She hasn't seemed to commit a transgression since literally false statements are routinely acceptable as long as they are not part of a deception.

Notice that, by TimS's interpretation, she actually is attempting to deceive him- she hopes that he believes the lie that nothing is wrong so that she won't have to discuss the issue now. If you want to question whether or not deceit is involved, bring it up with TimS.

I'm not really concerned with what TimS thinks-- lots of people have that covered. I'm sorry if this feels like I've put you in a double bind-- having to say she is lying to dispute TimS's position but also having to dispute my position that she was not lying (wasn't my intention).

Notice that any judgment about when the fight started is a political statement. Could we not say that Alice started the fight when she went against Bob's wishes and didn't explain what was wrong?

Conceivably. Personally, I think expecting people to be prepared to explain themselves immediately is unrealistic if not unfair. But note I also added that I don't think Bob can be expected to put up with Alice's attitude for an extended period of time if she is not prepared to talk about it.

Is it reasonable for Alice to assume that Bob is socially competent, particularly when it comes to this understanding?

Shrug. This is information that hasn't been stipulated one way or the other. But obviously a plausible explanation for the whole scene is that Alice thinks Bob is socially competent on this matter when he in fact isn't.

The problem is that, in this example, Bob wants to fix his model and Alice doesn't put any effort into fixing her model. (Remember, the original contention was over taryneast putting forward the suggestion that "Bob is too lazy to take the time and effort to understand Alice." SilasBarta concocted this hypothetical to suggest that the laziness of understanding is the other way around for many couples. TimS argued that Bob's lack of laziness was actually a vice.)

It can be the case that Alice is to blame for Bob not understanding her. It can also be the case that he is to blame. I have no idea how to evaluate that. I agree that if Alice is getting upset a lot and never saying why-- and if she is getting upset about is not something Bob ought infer with a bit of empathy-- then she is to blame for Bob not understanding her. Again, I don't agree with TimS.

People here are projecting their truth fetishes (which I share) onto the rest of the world. Not ever map correction needs to be made right away and often they disappear into irrelevance. Not everyone has the same high verbal intelligence as this crowd and it isn't fair to expect them to be able to put into words exactly what someone did wrong.

Alice wanting that and not being able to communicate it effectively is fixable, though. If your man is too literal to pick up on your hints, tell him directly!

Reasonable. Or break up with him if you need someone who can pick up on the hints. Alternatively, if your girl wants you to pick up on hints learn to pick up on them or break up with her. Or the two of your could find some sort of compromise.