[directive] C.  Effect of Adjustment on Plea Offer Calculation and Maximum Ex- tent of Reduction.  The complex/protracted litigation downward adjustment may be made only after the prosecutor has otherwise determined an appropriate plea offer calculated in accordance with the “Brimage” Guidelines, taking into account all applicable offense characteristics, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and special ap- plication and enhancement features.  (As noted above, a prosecutor invoking the new downward adjustment may not also invoke the trial proof adjustment feature described in Part VIII of the “Brimage” Guidelines.)  In this way, the court and the defendant will be advised of the extent of the downward adjustment and will be advised of the plea offer that would have been tendered in accordance with the “Brimage” Guidelines if this downward adjustment had not been made.  Where the prosecutor in the exercise of discretion elects to make a complex/ protracted litigation adjustment, the prosecutor is authorized to reduce the plea offer otherwise calculated pursuant to the “Brimage” Guidelines to the following extent:  The extent of the reduction within the limits established in the foregoing table is vested in the reasoned discretion of the prosecutor considering the nature of the complex/protracted litigation issues, the resources that would be expended in pursuing the litigation, the likelihood of prevailing in the litigation, and the seriousness of the offense.  Thus, for example, in a case involving a third-degree school-zone offense committed by a Criminal History Category II defendant, the prosecutor would be authorized by this Supplemental Directive to tender a plea offer (expressed in terms of months of parole ineligibility) between one (1) and twelve (12) months less than the offer that would have been tendered in accor- dance with the “Brimage” Guidelines but for the complex/protracted litigation downward adjustment.  Prosecutors in determining the extent of the downward adjustment within the limits established in the foregoing table may also take into account the factors and circumstances expressly referred to in the trial proof adjustment feature in Part VIII of the “Brimage” Guidelines, although as noted above, that feature could not be used in combination with the new downward adjustment for complex/pro- tracted litigation issues.  Note further that prosecutors are not authorized to invoke the new complex/protracted adjustment feature based upon the kinds of common or recurring trial proof problems, however substantial, that are described in Part VIII of the “Brimage” Guidelines.  While such circumstances may be considered by prosecutors in determining the extent of an authorized downward adjustment, the unusual or exceptional circumstances necessary to trigger any complex/protracted litigation adjustment must satisfy one or more of the criteria enumerated in § B.  In other words, common trial proof problems (e.g., the possibility of losing a routine suppression motion or credibility problems for a key prosection witness due to criminal charges or involvement) may be taken into account in determining the amount of the reduction within the prescribed limits, but would not be sufficient to justify invoking the new complex/protracted litigation adjustment feature.  Absent the unusual or exceptional circumstances necessary to trigger the new adjust- ment, such common problems must continue to be addressed in the context of the trial proof issue adjustment feature in Part VIII of the “Brimage” Guidelines.