How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Brazil

Step-by-step

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator.

You can run DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer workflow for Brazil (BR) by setting up your case assumptions and then letting the jurisdiction-aware rules generate a structured output. This guide covers the platform steps and what to expect from the calculator results—not legal strategy or filing decisions.

1) Open the right tool

Start from the calculator entry point:

• /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer

If you’re browsing within DocketMath instead, use the tool finder from your dashboard and select Offer Of Judgment Analyzer.

2) Confirm jurisdiction is set to Brazil (BR)

Inside the tool, locate the jurisdiction selector and choose:

• Brazil — BR

If the UI uses a default jurisdiction, double-check it before you enter any values. Different jurisdictions can change which fields the analyzer evaluates and how it interprets timing, caps, and eligibility logic.

3) Choose the analysis mode (if offered)

Many offer calculators support one of these patterns:

• One-off evaluation (single offer compared to expected outcome metrics)
• Scenario comparison (multiple offers / multiple payoff assumptions)

If the tool offers mode selection, pick the one that matches how you want to test outcomes. Scenario mode is especially useful if you want to compare two offer sizes side-by-side.

4) Enter the inputs the analyzer needs

Look for labeled fields grouped under sections like: Offer, Case value, Costs, Timing, and Assumptions. Enter values using the units and formats the UI specifies (currency, percentages, and days/dates).

Typical fields you may see include:

• Claim amount / economic value (e.g., principal or disputed amount)
• Proposed offer amount
• Offer terms (if the tool separates principal vs. total components)
• Estimated costs (court fees and/or other cost items—depending on what the UI requests)
• Payment timing / delivery date (often as a date or “days until payment”)
• Compensation assumptions (for example, whether to include components used by the BR logic)

Quick checklist for clean input entry:

5) Review jurisdiction-aware rule toggles (if present)

Some DocketMath jurisdiction settings unlock or restrict calculations depending on the selected country. For Brazil, the analyzer may apply BR-specific logic such as:

• whether the scenario includes cost components
• how timing affects the comparison
• whether the rules compare against a judgment-based threshold (when the calculator models it)

If you see checkboxes or toggles (for example, “Include estimated costs” or “Apply timing logic”), make sure they reflect your intent. Turning these on/off can change the outputs even if your offer amount stays the same.

6) Run the analysis

Click:

• Calculate / Run Analyzer

Wait for the results panel to populate. If you entered multiple scenarios, the tool may show a table with each scenario’s computed metrics.

7) Interpret the results panel

DocketMath typically shows outputs in two layers:

1. Numerical results (totals, comparisons, thresholds)
2. Explanation cards (brief reasons describing which inputs drove which outputs)

Common result elements to look for:

• Offer comparison: how the proposed offer stacks up against the analyzer’s benchmark(s)
• Adjusted totals: inclusion/exclusion of costs or other modeled components
• Timing effects: how the date/days input changes the modeled comparison
• Best-fit scenario indicators (if scenario mode is enabled)

If the tool provides a confidence or sensitivity section, treat it as model behavior based on the inputs you entered—not as a prediction of court outcomes. (This isn’t legal advice; it’s a decision-support calculation.)

8) Export or copy the results

Many DocketMath tools provide:

• Download (PDF/CSV depending on your account)
• Copy summary (text)
• Share link (sometimes for internal review)

Use export if you’re iterating across multiple offer values. Keeping a dated snapshot makes it easier to see how changing a single input (like cost estimates or timing) affects the computed comparison.

Common pitfalls

Even when the UI is straightforward, these issues commonly cause results that are “technically correct” but practically misleading. These are input/configuration issues, not legal pitfalls.

1. Wrong jurisdiction selection

   • Symptom: Outputs reference rule logic that doesn’t match what you expect for Brazil.
   • Fix: Confirm Brazil (BR) before entering values.

2. Mixing principal and total amounts

   • Symptom: Comparisons shift because the tool is using the wrong base.
   • Cause: The tool asks for claim amount, but you input claim + costs (or another combination).
   • Fix: Use the exact label units shown for each field.

3. Timing entered in the wrong format

   • Symptom: Results change dramatically after what you thought was a minor date edit.
   • Cause: Day/month order or format mismatch can flip the interpreted day count.
   • Fix: Enter dates exactly as the tool format indicates.

4. Forgetting to toggle “include costs”

   • Symptom: The modeled offer comparison moves significantly when you didn’t expect it.
   • Cause: With costs included, the analyzer output can shift meaningfully depending on your estimates.
   • Fix: Align the “include costs” setting with the cost values you entered.

5. Comparing scenarios with inconsistent assumptions

   • Symptom: Scenario comparisons feel “unfair” or inconsistent.
   • Cause: Scenario A includes costs but Scenario B doesn’t (or timing differs).
   • Fix: Keep cost/timing flags consistent across scenarios—change only the offer amount (or the specific variable you’re testing).

Pitfall to watch: If you run one analysis with estimated costs, then rerun without updating the cost fields (or toggles), you may assume only the offer changed—when the model behavior actually changed due to toggles.

Try it

To run the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Brazil, start here:

• /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer

When you’re ready, use this quick sanity-check workflow to see how outputs respond:

1. Set Jurisdiction = Brazil (BR).
2. Enter a base claim amount (use a real number—don’t leave defaults).
3. Run Scenario 1 with an offer at a moderate percentage of the claim (or the equivalent amount format your UI expects).
4. Duplicate the scenario (if available) and change only Offer amount.
5. Keep timing and cost inclusion the same across both scenarios.
6. Run again and compare:

   • the offer comparison metric
   • any displayed threshold/benchmark line
   • adjusted totals (especially if costs are modeled)

Then do one additional iteration:

1. Keep everything the same but change timing (for example, adjust “+30 days” if the tool supports relative timing, or update the date using the tool’s format).

This helps confirm the calculator is reacting to your inputs the way you expect—before you rely on the output formatting or export.

Related reading

• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Alabama
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Arizona
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Colorado