something really cool about the drama also is that while we, as an audience, have access to emma's interiority, memories and anxieties, charlie does not. emma never has to articulate to us why she considered going through with her plan and why she ultimately chose not to. we can see exactly how she reacted to being confronted with the consequences of the kind of harm she wanted to inflict on others and the steps she took to prevent herself and others from enacting that harm. i don't think she would've been unable to explain it, but i find it crucial that we see it instead of hear it, because it dispells any indication that she is not genuine, and it impresses on us what her motivations were and what factors dissuaded her. charlie, however, does not have access to her memories and interiority the same way we do and would have to investigate and interpret her framing and narrative of that moment.
and, because charlie's portrayed as being functionally emotionally illiterate, the gaps emma leaves are filled with his own assumptions and bad faith, oversimplified interpretations of her actions. he can't, but also won't, do the interpretive work that emma cannot do for him.
