The group chat at two in the morning is not how the work gets divided. It is how five people postpone the one decision that would let everyone work alone. Someone types "we should meet tomorrow" and tomorrow never arrives. The deadline does.
You do not need a call. You need a written split, one commitment from each person, and a default if they stay quiet.
The chat is not a plan
A plan names pieces of work a stranger could pick up. "Someone should do the intro" is a vibe. "Maya writes the literature section, 800 words, citing the three papers on the shared list, by Thursday noon" is a plan. The first version feels collaborative. The second version is the only one that survives a week of conflicting schedules.
Write the pieces before you write to people. Three to five named chunks, each small enough that one person can finish it without waiting on the others. If two chunks depend on each other, say so, and give those two people a later date rather than pretending the dependency is not there.
Then pick one decision: who takes which chunk. Not "thoughts on how we should approach this." That is an unbounded essay, and respecting the reader's time starts by refusing to hand them one.
Ask for one commitment, not a huddle
Ask for a decision with the options closed. For a four-person lab report that might look like: take the methods write-up, take the figures, take the discussion, or say which of those you cannot do and name a smaller piece you can. One reply. One line is enough.
Give the response shape a name so they know a short answer is allowed. Decision, not opinion. You are not collecting preferences about the science. You are assigning ownership so the science can happen.
Set a default. "If I do not hear by Wednesday 6pm, I will take methods and assign discussion to whoever has not claimed anything." A date without a consequence is a preference. People ignore preferences when they are tired.
Do not ask them to rebuild your context. The assignment title, the due date, the word count, and the piece you are offering them is the whole brief. If they already know the course, they still should not have to scroll a transcript of your panic.
Put the split where they can answer it
A RelayLink briefing is built for this shape: one ask, options listed, a short note in your own words, and a thread you can re-read when someone later says they never agreed.
You draft it with your assistant. You read the exact package. You confirm the send — the approval is yours, not the model's. Nothing leaves until you say so.
Teammates without an account get ordinary email and a link to the page. They reply from there. They do not sign in, they do not pick a password, and they do not install anything. Teammates who already have RelayLink accounts need an accepted contact before a send will go through; invite them once, then the standing path is open.
Nicknames you set for "Sam from lab" stay on your side unless you choose to share that word. Write the briefing in names they would recognise — the name on the roster, not the private label.
There are no attachments. If the rubric lives in the learning system, link them to that place in one sentence and keep the briefing for the decision. A file dump is how the ask gets buried.
If someone does not want further messages from you, a block is silent. You will not get a speech about it. Treat silence after an honest deadline as the default you already named, and move.
The 2am chat can stay for memes. The split belongs in a briefing they can answer from a phone, in under two minutes, without opening a call. When you are ready to send that, connect your assistant.