Formula and interface behavior
The library supports arithmetic reconciliation, variance sensitivity, filtering, demonstrations, and product QA across varied cost stacks.
Auditable evidence •
Every headline number opens into the records behind it. Review 500 evidence rows, 2,000 audited synthetic scenario packets, 48,000 automated assertions, and 30 queued validation candidates in the separate dealer-evidence lane.
All 500 rows passed the arithmetic check appropriate to their stated audit depth. That validates calculation behavior, not title, condition, repair outcome, or profit. The June 29 source snapshot contains 443 unique normalized source addresses and 57 additional rows sharing an address; availability has not been reverified.
A third, clearly separated layer
Each synthetic packet includes identity, simulated date, repair scope, parts, labor, AvLu estimate, simulated closeout, variance, and formula impact. Simulation is not validation.
The library supports arithmetic reconciliation, variance sensitivity, filtering, demonstrations, and product QA across varied cost stacks.
No synthetic record is a dealer quote, mechanic invoice, repair order, publication-ready case, or proof of a successful purchase.
Every record identifies AvLu’s scenario generator as its source and uses a synthetic vehicle ID instead of a plausible VIN.
The dealer campaign remains the path to attributable estimates, final repair documents, real variance, and formula impact.
Automated regression QA v4.0.0
Each synthetic packet runs through 24 named checks covering identity boundaries, source classification, cost integrity, estimate math, closeout math, variance, formula impact, protected maximum, and dealer-outcome guardrails.
Every packet checks estimate, closeout, variance, formula impact, and revised protected maximum.
Every packet must remain synthetic, non-VIN, not dealer verified, and ineligible as a dealer outcome.
The public report contains the assertion catalog, source-dataset fingerprint, six-pattern coverage, and 2,000 record-level results.
The pass rate validates deterministic software and formula behavior, not predictive accuracy, repair outcomes, or realized profit.
Two evidence layers
The ledger keeps broad screening evidence separate from dealer-backed outcome evidence.
Does not prove: dealer repair cost, title status, physical condition, purchase result, or realized profit.
Completion requires: dated repair evidence, scope, parts and labor, repair-source identity, AvLu estimate, actual estimate, variance, and formula impact.
Redacted row-level evidence
Filter the public manifest by audit depth, VIN-format status, or risk. Raw source addresses, VINs, dealer identities, and contact details are intentionally omitted. The remaining vehicle details and source fingerprints are pseudonymous, not guaranteed anonymous.
Loading the redacted evidence manifest…
| Evidence ID | Vehicle | Planning math | Audit depth | Source type | VIN format | Risk | Formula | Next proof action |
|---|
Quote-to-case bridge
Every candidate currently has the identity baseline and original AvLu estimate. The remaining document, source, variance, and consent gates are still open.
Loading the redacted validation queue…
| Campaign | Vehicle | Selection group | Baseline math | Completed gates | Written quote | Consent | Evidence status |
|---|
Case-study gate
Consent is a separate publication gate. Silence is never treated as permission.
What the next evidence will show
Each completed case will compare the original planning allowance against attributable repair evidence and show the exact effect on the protected maximum offer and ask gap.
Recheck availability, identity, VIN, title claim, mileage, and the current listing source.
Request a dated inspection, estimate, repair order, invoice, or identifiable written dealer summary.
Replace the planning allowance with the documented amount and calculate variance and formula impact.
Use named, anonymized, or internal-only treatment according to the dealer’s documented choice.
A redacted inspection, estimate, repair order, invoice, or attributable written repair summary is enough to start the comparison.