Build a valuation reasoning framework that compares methods instead of handing back a single number

I need help structuring my thinking on a valuation question — not a single number, because a single confident valuation figure from an AI model would be misleading given how much judgment and market-specific data a real valuation actually requires. I want a framework comparing how different valuation approaches would reason about this situation and where they'd likely disagree.

SITUATION
Founder considering an early buyout offer for a 15%-owned stake in a private company

AVAILABLE FINANCIALS
Trailing 12-month revenue $3.2M, EBITDA roughly breakeven, no audited statements, two years of internal P&Ls

COMPARABLE CONTEXT I HAVE
One competitor raised at a reported 4x revenue multiple 18 months ago, but details of that deal's terms aren't public

WHAT THIS VALUATION IS FOR
Deciding whether to accept, negotiate, or reject a buyout offer for the stake

For each of the following approaches that's actually applicable to this situation — comparables/multiples, discounted cash flow, and (if relevant) an asset-based or precedent-transaction approach — explain what that method fundamentally assumes about value, what specific inputs it would need that I haven't given you (be concrete: for DCF, that means a discount rate and terminal growth assumption; for comparables, that means an actual peer set and their current multiples), and roughly what kind of situation makes that method more or less reliable. Then explain where these approaches would likely land in meaningfully different places for a situation like this one specifically, and why — not a generic "methods can differ" caveat, but the actual mechanism (e.g., a DCF is more sensitive to long-term growth assumptions than a multiples approach, which anchors to current market sentiment instead).

WHAT NOT TO DO
Do not produce a specific dollar valuation or multiple as if it were a real output — you do not have real comparable company data, a real discount rate derivation, or audited financials, and a specific number would carry false authority. Do not claim a named industry-standard multiple or discount rate as fact; if I haven't given you a number, say what's missing and what kind of source would supply it (an actual comparable transaction database, a real cost-of-capital calculation).

OUTPUT FORMAT
1. A section per applicable method: What It Assumes | What Inputs Are Missing | When This Method Is More/Less Reliable Here.
2. A short section on where these methods would likely disagree for this specific situation and why.
3. A closing paragraph stating plainly that this is a framework for organizing the analysis, not a valuation, and that an actual number requires either a qualified valuation professional or the real inputs (verified comparables, an actual discount rate, audited financials) plugged into a proper model.