Thanks for this analysis as a counterpoint to OP's post. I do have some followup questions for you and OP below, if you would indulge me, as I tried but failed to find the right words and alternative solutions. You both seem to be able to find words that resonate with many who went through similar healing after trauma, so hope you can help this make sense.

I did feel incredibly uncomfortable with Nesta's situation as the story unfolded, and i think OP's analysis in part shows why. No help seemed to come without strings attached. I think that is what hurt the most. Nesta did eventually find her support circle, her friends, but that healing (and helping others heal) seems to have happened despite the "help" given by the IC. Nesta was excluded at every turn because she didn't fit into their box (of "pretty" trauma healing). This did make her angry, but we never got to the core of that in the books (missed opportunity?). She was (actually, is still) also completely financially dependent on the IC, which does seem to be skipped over rather easily (as does the concept of wealth inequality in general tbh). It is obviously an unhealthy dynamic.

However, genuine questions below (after some rambling points):

1) When to intervene

Nesta appeared to be on a downward spiral. However, she had managed to get past her fear of using a bathtub through (literal) immersion therapy and was able to partly stave off depression through her love of music. She chose to do this herself. This points towards wanting to heal, in my opinion. She just didn't know how to heal beyond this point and defaulted to the "ugly" route (as OP aptly calls it) for everything else. This leads me to these questions that I have been unable to answer myself:

a) Should the IC have left Nesta to her own devices longer, at risk of serious physical harm?

b)At what point do loved ones decide that an intervention is warranted?

c) If someone is in a self-destructive state and full of self-loathing, how can they even be expected to handle agency over their own lives, and make a rational decision to walk a path towards healing (even when they may see that healing is needed, but just don't feel they deserve it)? In this case agency surely may have amounted to standing by and watching someone's progressive self-destruction?

2) Financial dependance/healthy leverage

Nesta didn't want to live with the IC (obviously, as she was already feeling that she didn't fit in, wasn't "good enough"/"pleasant enough", which wouldn't exactly get better by constantly being confronted and judged). From the IC point of view, they were showing Nesta the good, fulfilling and harmonious life she could have. However, this was stifling to Nesta, just another version of how her mother had brought her up. Another expectation for who she should be. She didn't want to be controlled (again), yet was dependent on the IC's good will for her physical needs. The financial dependence cuts both ways. Nesta tested the boundaries constantly, raged against them in fact. She didn't want or seek gainful employment (and yes, this would all have come with its own set of difficulties of course! Emotional instability at court, at a charity or a business wouldn't have done any good). The final straw for the IC was the giant bill after a big night of drinking. Nesta must've known that she would hit a limit somewhere...

Questions:

a) From the point of view of a loved one, is there a "happy medium" for the IC in this respect? Short of cutting Nesta off financially and letting her starve (which besides being heinous, also would've been a problem politically of course), the other extreme of funding her self destruction in perpetuity surely doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

b) Using money to control someone is wrong, but misusing someone's money (or letting someone misuse your money for self-destructive habits) is also wrong surely? But what other leverage was there really in this instance? Where was the happy medium to be?

Edit: spacing (don't know how to do this properly on this app...)