Which would mean that you didn't bother to read the instructions. There was no negotiation possible involving the primary isntructions. The Lincoln administration would recognize the legitimacy of the Davis regime and no other outcome was acceptable. Failing that then the second part was just window dressing meant to make the confederate demands look reasonable.
What evidence do you have of that?
In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear his hope for a peaceful solution. He had taken no hostile actions, as he promised in his address. He also tried to hold on to federal property, as promised in his address. Violence could have been avoided had Davis want to avoid it. But instead Davis forced the issue.
Lincoln did not meet with any commissioner sent by any state.
To what end? Like I said there was nothing to discuss and no reason to believe that the Davis regime, having seized federal property at the point of a gun, had any interest if paying fair compensation for it. Their tactic on the first instructions were 'take it or leave it' so why should we believe that their position on the second instructions would be any different?
Considering that Lincoln didn't even try there is no way of knowing that for certain.
In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear his hope for a peaceful solution.
Meaningless lip service. IIRC, Saddam made a speech on Iraqi TV a few days before the war hoping for a peaceful solution as well. In Lincoln's case, the real message of his speech was "back down or else there will be war." That message was universally known among the southerners in the days following his speech. If you doubt me just look what they said in Congress in response to it. Even the moderates from the border states like Virginia (who Lincoln also refused to meet with) saw it as a threat for war.
He had taken no hostile actions
His hostile act, aside from all the thinly guised threats of war, was dispatching the fleet. He had been plotting that hostile act since Anderson garrisoned Sumter on December 26th.
Violence could have been avoided had Davis want to avoid it.
...which makes about as much sense as "violence could be avoided if you simply open your door and let me march in with my shotgun in hand."
To what end?
In Virginia's case, to the end of preventing it from seceding. In the case of the rest of the south, to the end of devising an agreeable means of permitting peaceful separation, altering the nature of union, or offering a compromise to counter their departure from the union.
no reason to believe that the Davis regime, having seized federal property at the point of a gun, had any interest if paying fair compensation for it.
Wrong. All three of the other forts that SC had "seized" were bought and paid for by SC long before the federal government even had a regular army. Even then, as a means of facilitating their peaceful transfer, SC offered to pay for them. They sent commissioners authorized to deliver payment in December 1860. The rest of the CSA followed suit. In January 1861 Sen. Slidell of Louisiana even went to the Senate floor to pledge payment for any of the southern forts. Davis' commissioners to Lincoln even held papers in hand permitting them to transfer payment for facilities. Absolutely no reason exists as to why they would not have paid as repeatedly offered. The only impediment to it was the fact that Lincoln, already hell bent on war, refused to meet with anyone.
Their tactic on the first instructions were 'take it or leave it'
No it wasn't. A major purpose of the meeting was to settle on a fair price itself! They were willing to allow Lincoln offer whatever fair price he saw and negotiate from there, but he refused to meet.