#side*

I feel like the main important distinction that is the line between Byler and Milkvan for Mike's plot is that you need to listen to Mike's wording.

Mike is upset with himself because he COULDN'T say it. Not because he DIDN'T say it.

He says that maybe if he had said it things would have turned differently, that applies to both, but he ALSO says that he thinks he can't come back from it and that he should have explained himself but didn't because he didn't know what to do.

If you regret not having said something and will remedy that as soon as you see them again, as is Will's interpretation and suggestion ("whatever you didn't say, you can say it to her then"), then you won't say the things you do but the main point? YOU WON'T BE DWELLING ON IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Mike wouldn't have brought it up THREE TIMES to Will, saying basically the same thing the first two, if he weren't racking his brain confused. That is a man who DOES NOT HAVE A SOLUTION! not one who's just regretful. One who's regretful says it once and dwells on their lack of action, not their lack of knowledge. If he knows what to do NOW, there's no need to include "I didn't know what to do" in the story...we gathered that.

And THIS is where Byler comes in. I really that's the only difference because under knowing he doesn't have a solution, that requires the painting to have motivated it one way or another and that is an endgame ensurer.

I GET IT NOW. If Mike was immediately able to say it as soon as she left, it would be because in the moment he just froze up out of a fear of vulnerability and Will's painting would be inconsequential to him because he could already say it and would therefore only affect Will's arc, with its payoff being Will telling Mike his feelings and not the lie being revealed because the lie wouldn't have changed Mike's course of action at all. Then his later claim that he didn't say anything because he was scared in the moment makes total sense from the perspective that he was able to as SOON AS THE MOMENT PASSED.

I GET IT NOW. I GET WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO PEOPLE. Because it IS a consistent story...just consistent with a misinterpretation of Mike's words. Clever, writers. Clever. Very strategic ambiguity.