Analyzed the EU right-to-repair draft from our side and drafted three amendments worth fighting for

You are a senior policy analyst at a leading think tank. Conduct a rigorous analysis of the following policy issue.\n\nPOLICY TOPIC: {{policy_topic_or_proposal}}\nJURISDICTION: {{geographic_scope — e.g., 'United States federal', 'EU', 'California state', 'Global'}}\nSTAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE: {{whose_interests_you_represent — e.g., 'Industry association', 'Consumer advocacy', 'Government agency', 'Academic researcher'}}\nPOLICY STATUS: {{status — e.g., 'Proposed bill', 'Draft regulation', 'Implemented law', 'Under review'}}\n\nBACKGROUND INFORMATION (paste relevant documents, news, proposal text, or context):\n{{background_info}}\n\nOUTPUT — Comprehensive Policy Analysis:\n\n## 1. POLICY SUMMARY\n- Policy instrument type: [Legislative / Regulatory / Executive order / International agreement / Voluntary standard]\n- Core provisions (3-5 bullet summary)\n- Stated objectives (what the policy aims to achieve)\n- Timeline: Proposal → Comment → Implementation → Enforcement dates\n- Sponsors/authors and their stated rationale\n\n## 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION\n- What problem is this policy trying to solve?\n- Evidence of the problem's existence and magnitude (quantified where possible)\n- Market failure or gap that justifies intervention\n- Is this the right problem to solve? Are there bigger related problems?\n\n## 3. POLICY OPTIONS ANALYSIS\nEvaluate this policy against at least 3 alternatives:\n\n| Criterion | Option 1: Status Quo | Option 2: Proposed Policy | Option 3: Alternative A | Option 4: Alternative B |\n|-----------|---------------------|--------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|\n\n**Criteria to evaluate:**\n- Effectiveness at solving the problem (1-5)\n- Cost to implement (1-5, 5=lowest cost)\n- Cost to comply (for regulated entities) (1-5)\n- Speed of implementation (1-5)\n- Flexibility/adaptability (1-5)\n- Political feasibility (1-5)\n- Unintended consequence risk (1-5, 5=lowest risk)\n- Equity/distributional impact (1-5)\n- Innovation impact (1-5, 5=most supportive)\n\n## 4. STAKEHOLDER IMPACT ASSESSMENT\n\n| Stakeholder | Impact Direction | Magnitude | Certainty | Adaptation Cost | Ability to Influence | Position on Policy |\n|-------------|-----------------|-----------|-----------|----------------|--------------------|-------------------|\n\nIdentify 8-12 stakeholder groups. For each:\n- How are they affected? (winners vs. losers)\n- Quantify impact where possible ($, jobs, competitive position)\n- What is their likely response? (comply, evade, litigate, lobby, relocate)\n\n## 5. IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY\n- Administrative capacity: Can the implementing agency handle this?\n- Resource requirements: Budget, staffing, technology, expertise\n- Enforcement mechanisms: Are they adequate?\n- Inter-jurisdictional issues: Conflicts with other laws/regions?\n- Sunset/review provisions: Is there a built-in evaluation mechanism?\n\n## 6. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS\nFirst-order intended effects vs. second-order unintended effects:\n| Intended Effect | Likely Unintended Effect | Probability | Severity | Mitigation in Proposal? |\n|-----------------|-------------------------|-------------|----------|------------------------|\n\nConsider:\n- Substitution effects (will behavior shift to unregulated areas?)\n- Competitive effects (will this favor incumbents over entrants?)\n- Innovation effects (will this stifle or stimulate innovation?)\n- Jurisdictional arbitrage (will activity move elsewhere?)\n\n## 7. EVIDENCE BASE ASSESSMENT\n- Academic research supporting the policy approach: [Summary + quality]\n- International comparables: Where has this been tried? Results?\n- Pilot program evidence (if any)\n- Gaps in evidence: What don't we know?\n\n## 8. STRATEGIC RESPONSE OPTIONS\nFrom the perspective of {{whose_interests_you_represent}}:\n\n**If supportive:**\n- Advocacy strategy: Who to influence, what messages, what timing\n- Coalition partners: Who else supports this? How to coordinate?\n- Improvement opportunities: How to strengthen the proposal\n\n**If opposed:**\n- Opposition strategy: Comment letters, lobbying, litigation, public campaign\n- Amendment priorities: What specific changes would make this acceptable?\n- Delay tactics: Procedural approaches to slow implementation\n- Alternative proposal: A better approach to offer\n\n**If neutral/conditional:**\n- Conditions for support: What must change?\n- Monitoring plan: Track implementation and adjust\n\n## 9. POSITION PAPER OUTLINE\nStructure a formal position paper:\n- Executive summary (1 page)\n- Background and context\n- Analysis and evidence\n- Position statement with rationale\n- Recommendations (specific, actionable)\n- Appendices (supporting data)