You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?

I didn't realise i was supposed to be refuting it, but here it is:

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

Should be

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves some of the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

The second half of the reply is modifier to the first (i previously said addition/clarification, modifier is better)

Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.

I'm not, and i quote:

If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.

You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.

Not really.

Though i see what you mean about it not matching exactly what was said.

I'm counting the refutation of the original Housing Only premise as a partial argument for the implication of a Housing + [1..*] solution.

Partly taking in to account the variety of additional things suggested as implying an etc. rather than things being a finite list because the first part and second part have different numbers of additional things listed.

I can see how that might just be my specific interpretation though.

And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.

I think what i've done here is read "assistance" as an undefined length list of additional things including the ones specified, rather than just the defined list provided.

My bad.

Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.

I would take all assumptions to be neutral until proven, if i start applying morality to assumptions it might interfere with my ability to verify those assumptions. That goes for both "good" and "bad".