[nitpick] The _requestedValue field is initialized to 0d, which matches the default value for the Value property. However, this creates ambiguity: when _userSetValue is false, it's unclear whether the user never set a value, or whether they explicitly set it to 0.

Consider initializing _requestedValue to double.NaN or a nullable double? to distinguish between "never set" and "set to 0". This would make the logic more robust and prevent potential issues where a user sets Value to 0, then changes the range, and the value doesn't restore properly.

Potential logic issue: When a Slider is created with default values, the Value property is initialized to its default (0d) by the BindableProperty system. However, it's unclear whether coerceValue is invoked during this initialization, which would set _userSetValue = true.

If coerceValue is NOT called for default values, then _userSetValue will be false, and the test ValueClampedWhenOnlyRangeChanges() will pass. But this creates inconsistent behavior:

• A user who explicitly sets slider.Value = 0 gets value preservation
• A user who relies on the default Value = 0 does not get value preservation

If coerceValue IS called for default values, then _userSetValue will be true, and the test ValueClampedWhenOnlyRangeChanges() at line 171 will fail because line 174 would attempt to restore the "requested" value of 0.

This ambiguity should be clarified and properly tested. Consider adding a test that explicitly verifies the behavior when Value is explicitly set to the default value (0) vs. when it's left at the default.

[nitpick] Inconsistency in code formatting: The Slider's MinimumProperty and MaximumProperty declarations use explicit line breaks and parameter alignment (lines 20-26, 29-35), while the ValueProperty declaration remains in a more compact format (line 38).

For consistency and readability, consider reformatting ValueProperty to match the style of MinimumProperty and MaximumProperty:

public static readonly BindableProperty ValueProperty = BindableProperty.Create(
    nameof(Value), typeof(double), typeof(Slider), 0d, BindingMode.TwoWay, 
    coerceValue: (bindable, value) =>
    {
        // ...
    }, 
    propertyChanged: (bindable, oldValue, newValue) =>
    {
        // ...
    });

[nitpick] Potential concurrency issue: The _isRecoercing flag is not thread-safe. If two threads simultaneously call property setters (e.g., one sets Minimum while another sets Maximum), both could enter RecoerceValue() and potentially corrupt the _requestedValue or create race conditions with the _isRecoercing flag.

While MAUI controls are typically used on the UI thread, the BindableProperty system doesn't inherently enforce this, and users might update properties from background threads (especially during MVVM binding updates).

Consider:

1. Adding thread-safety using locks or Interlocked operations
2. Documenting that these properties must only be set from the UI thread
3. Or accepting the risk if cross-thread access is not a supported scenario for these controls

[nitpick] The _requestedValue field is initialized to 0d, which matches the default value for the Value property. However, this creates ambiguity: when _userSetValue is false, it's unclear whether the user never set a value, or whether they explicitly set it to 0.

Consider initializing _requestedValue to double.NaN or a nullable double? to distinguish between "never set" and "set to 0". This would make the logic more robust and prevent potential issues where a user sets Value to 0, then changes the range, and the value doesn't restore properly.

Potential logic issue: When a Stepper is created with default values, the Value property is initialized to its default (0.0) by the BindableProperty system. However, it's unclear whether coerceValue is invoked during this initialization, which would set _userSetValue = true.

If coerceValue is NOT called for default values, then _userSetValue will be false, and the test ValueClampedWhenOnlyRangeChanges() will pass. But this creates inconsistent behavior:

• A user who explicitly sets stepper.Value = 0 gets value preservation
• A user who relies on the default Value = 0 does not get value preservation

If coerceValue IS called for default values, then _userSetValue will be true, and the test ValueClampedWhenOnlyRangeChanges() at line 399 will fail because line 402 would attempt to restore the "requested" value of 0.

This ambiguity should be clarified and properly tested. Consider adding a test that explicitly verifies the behavior when Value is explicitly set to the default value (0) vs. when it's left at the default.

[nitpick] Potential logic inconsistency: The _requestedValue is stored before Math.Round is applied (line 45), but the actual Value is rounded (line 48). This means:

1. User sets Value = 1.23456 with Increment = 0.1 (digits = 5)
2. _requestedValue = 1.23456 (unrounded)
3. Actual Value becomes Math.Round(1.23456, 5).Clamp(...) = 1.23456
4. Later, Minimum changes and triggers RecoerceValue()
5. RecoerceValue sets Value = _requestedValue (1.23456)
6. coerceValue runs again with the SAME value, so it rounds again

This should work correctly, but it's doing unnecessary work. Consider storing the rounded value instead:

double roundedValue = Math.Round((double)value, stepper.digits);
if (!stepper._isRecoercing)
{
    stepper._requestedValue = roundedValue;
    stepper._userSetValue = true;
}
return roundedValue.Clamp(stepper.Minimum, stepper.Maximum);

This avoids redundant rounding operations and makes the logic clearer.

[nitpick] Potential concurrency issue: The _isRecoercing flag is not thread-safe. If two threads simultaneously call property setters (e.g., one sets Minimum while another sets Maximum), both could enter RecoerceValue() and potentially corrupt the _requestedValue or create race conditions with the _isRecoercing flag.

While MAUI controls are typically used on the UI thread, the BindableProperty system doesn't inherently enforce this, and users might update properties from background threads (especially during MVVM binding updates).

Consider:

1. Adding thread-safety using locks or Interlocked operations
2. Documenting that these properties must only be set from the UI thread
3. Or accepting the risk if cross-thread access is not a supported scenario for these controls

Missing test coverage: There's no test for the scenario where a user sets Value multiple times with range changes in between. For example:

1. Set Value = 50
2. Set Maximum = 40 (value clamped to 40)
3. User explicitly sets Value = 30
4. Set Maximum = 100

The expected behavior is that Value should be 30 (the most recent user-set value), not 50 (the original). The current implementation should handle this correctly because step 3 would update _requestedValue = 30, but this scenario should be explicitly tested to ensure the fix works as intended and to prevent regressions.