The principle: that there is a kind of content of an utterance which is tied to the point of the utterance (which is tied to motivations/expectations of conversational participants).
This is an underlying assumption of many contextualist arguments.
The point of Naomi’s utterance is different (to relate Mary’s wealth to the standards of wealth in her world).
Unfounded: context principle justifies tying the truth conditions to points/interest/conversational standards.
Counterexample: wealthy people who say they themselves aren’t wealthy - it is in their interests to not seem wealthy (to avoid legislation, to seem like a salt-of-earth person). Perhaps their use of the word is serving those desires.
The truth conditions ought to float free of the ‘local discourse’ if the argument actually concerns disputed territory. If Deedee/Naomi agree that the rich ought pay a special tax, then it is crucial to have a notion of ‘rich’ that is dictated by a larger discourse which includes both participants (the larger community agrees with Deedee in this case, so Naomi’s claim can be called false even if it matches her local community’s use of the word).
Contextualists acknowledge that interests/focus of attention vary among people but do not pay special attention to what those interests are - harsh charge but evidence by the fact that most contextualists are not methadological contextualists
(Wittgenstein was a methodological contextualist).
The ‘freighted terms’ which philosophers are most often interested in seem to more likely be the cases like ‘wealth’ where we do not want to let people’s biases dictate the correctness of their word usage.