Yours misses... by a mile. Simplification has as the necessary result... being simple. The situation isn't simple, and efforts to posture complex realities in a contest as simple... makes the point that it is hard to describe complex things in simple terms while retaining the VALUE inherent in a more complex description and understanding of the reality in all its complexity.
Seeing things in black and white rather than multiple shades of grey... doesn't make your simple view more useful.
So, what does yours do to address what is necessary to have in an effort at crafting a new field of play on which a settlement MIGHT occur ? Oh, wait... you didn't address that. You haven't considered a potential benefit from making it easier for them to settle ??? Giving them what they need in order to get what you want. Wow. Helpful.
The constant effort in over simplification here might be purposeful... or it might reflect other things. I don't know. I doubt it is helpful to write letters to the judge that express overly simple opinions that show you don't understand the issues... or what is going on... and that miss coming close to addressing the elements that matter.
The element of key concern I see in play here is the degree to which the sale effort that has been undertaken PROPERLY uses market pricing mechanisms, and the degree to which it uses them improperly. Address that issue to the judge PROPERLY, and you might get a more useful result than if you act the role of the simpleton. If you don't see what the real weaknesses in your opponents arguments ARE... because you are too lazy to look at them, you probably deserve what you get in the result.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
