Valuation — Repurchase baseline = purchase/lease price − mileage offset (miles at first repair attempt ÷ 120,000 × price, per Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)). Incidental costs (tax, registration, towing, rental) are excluded per firm SOP — they are not part of our negotiation. Civil-penalty exposure = 1–2× the baseline (e.g. Song-Beverly § 1794(c)). Maximum defensible demand = baseline + 2× penalty exposure. Value floor = 20% of the RISC value (the retail-installment total: principal + interest financed, per Eloy — usually higher than sticker) + $2,500 minimum attorney fees, which sets a hard bottom for the counter. Enter the RISC amount for the floor; the purchase/lease price still drives the buyback baseline. If no RISC amount is entered, the floor falls back to the purchase price. Example (Eloy): if the sell/purchase value is $20,000 but the RISC shows $40,000, the floor uses $40,000 — 20% + $2,500 ≈ $11,000. 7.5× was considered and rejected as less accurate at consuming the manufacturer's case budget.

Counteroffer rules — The recommended counter is the higher of (a) the value floor — 20% of the RISC value plus a $2,500 minimum in attorney fees (Eloy's rule; 7.5× was considered and rejected as less accurate at consuming the manufacturer's case budget) — or (b) ≈3.2× the manufacturer's current offer, whichever is greater. When the statutory presumption is met, the counter anchors at the repurchase (buyback) baseline instead. Always a round thousand, strictly above their offer, strictly below our stated initial demand (unless the floor exceeds it — then the floor wins and is flagged), never past the maximum defensible figure. Walk-away ≥ 20% of the RISC value. All computed in code, not by the AI — the AI only reads the documents and writes the prose.

One continuous case file — Cases that started in the CPLG Demand Writer open here pre-filled: from the Demand Writer's admin portal, every letter has a "Maximizer →" link (and one appears right after each .docx download) that carries the client, RISC total, demand amount, state, purchase date, and manufacturer into this tool. Use it when the manufacturer responds instead of retyping the case — the negotiation starts from the same file the demand came from, and the outcome you log feeds the learning loop end to end.

Statutory presumption & state law — the presumption triggers checked are the California standard (Civ. Code § 1793.22(b)): 30+ cumulative days out of service, 4+ repair attempts on the same nonconformity, or 2+ attempts on a defect likely to cause death or serious injury. The draft cites the selected state's own lemon law (e.g. a WV case cites W. Va. Code § 46A-6A-1, not California), plus the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which applies everywhere. Non-CA cases are flagged to verify that state's exact thresholds.

Repurchase vs. cash, and coverage — when the presumption is met and the vehicle is still within the lemon-law window, the counter anchors at the repurchase (buyback) baseline and the tool tells you to request a repurchase from counsel. If the purchase date shows the first repair came more than two years after purchase, the lemon-law window has likely lapsed — a buyback is probably off the table, so the counter falls to the cash value-floor and the claim leans on Magnuson-Moss. Every analysis states plainly whether the case qualifies for a repurchase and which trigger to invoke.

Days out of service is computed from the repair-order in/out dates, never estimated. A missing date makes the total a stated floor, not a guess. The recommended figure is a starting point — negotiator judgment always overrides it.